Want to restore the planet's ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? The first 200 people to join Planet Wild will get the first month for free at - planetwild.com/r/leavecurious/join or use my code CURIOUS7 later.
This is a scam by con people trying to your money by implying if you give them money greens will go. Why do they need money? All they need to do is publish and provide results to planters. This is not an expensive proposition and doesn’t need that much cash. One philanthropist could take care of all their money needs.
Perhaps a botanist in Japan developed this new method because the Japanese learned the lesson the hard way. The picture you included in 1:00 shows a dense Japanese Cedar forest in the background. Chances are that the forest in this picture is not natural, but a result of Japan's massive reforestation/aforestation project in the mid-1900s. They planted a lot of Japanese Cedar because it grew fast and their straight trunks were good for lumber. Fast forward half a century, These forests are causing serious allergy outbreaks every spring, and their shallow and weak roots sometimes cause the whole mountainside to slide and collapse in a heavy rain. If there's a country that is interested in and eager to find out how not to ruin a forest with monocultures and prefers healthier and more diverse ones, Japan has to be one of the most fitting.
I was going to mention exactly this. Over dense forestry plantation is proven to be negative in the long run. It looks really impressive at the beginning because all that growth seems like thriving, but it's really just desperation for light. In a natural system, big, old trees, shade out young trees that try to start below them and choke them out, so there's a natural system by which trees space themselves far enough apart that they don't compete for light and leave enough filtering through for lower-level vegetation to sustain themselves as well. Dense plantations where all the trees start at once eventually outgrow the understory and completely shade it out because they're growing too close together. You're left with eerily empty and overly uniform stands of trees with little to no biodiversity below the canopy level, which is the only place left to get enough sunlight to grow. So while this is great for forestry, it's terrible for rewilding.
@@QuesoCookies I disagree with this as long as the tree species are diverse. If they all grew at the same time, as in a monoculture, this happens 100%, but if you have a variety of plants that grow with different patterns, different light needs, and at differing rates, I could see this not being an issue.
@@floob247 Diversity isn't magic bullet. Just because something is diverse, it doesn't guarantee it will be better. Trees don't only shade out their own species, they have to shade out all the others as well, or else they will remain in competition for the light. So, sure, with a variety of trees, you'll eventually find out which ones grow the tallest and will eventually shade out everything around them, and instead of the 75% of the thinly planted stand all making it to old age and eventually filling out every niche, you have 10% of the densely planted stand growing tall enough to win all the light, killing anything unfortunate enough to be growing beneath them, and requiring the understory to start over, but only if they happen not to be planted too closely to each other to hinder that.
@@QuesoCookies Rewatch the video then, I don't know what to tell you. Edit: I can think of two massive trees on my parents farm that have grown together for around 100 years. A willow and a cottonwood.
@@floob247 I did watch it. The results are deceptive. You're not seeing a huge success, the stand with 5x more density is current 5x more dense, no surprise. And you're not seeing everything shoot up because it's so healthy, everything is becoming very flimsy but tall, a condition called legginess, which is a well known response plants have to insufficient light exposure. They're all trying to get taller than everything around them to ensure they're getting enough light. It doesn't take much knowledge or critical thinking to recognize this method is flawed and these results are both short-lived and misrepresented.
As a hobby gardener, I started planting drought tolerant gardens in my yard like this. It looks “busy” when it’s new with lots of little plants close together, but by year 2 it was thriving with minimal water in our hot California summers.
As a hobby gardener I watched my noob neighbor try this. Pretty in the first year, second and third years were meh and this year he hacked it all off cause it looked dead and was an eyesore. My backyard is a jungle... but I put in work all the time.
@@silentstormstudio4782 well India has a bit more acreage 😉 He does mention this is a unique problem in the UK towards the end of the video. He's talking about trying to get habitats back for wildlife and for a healthy landscape. Not just for "tidy and pleasing to your eye". I believe the Brits have enough knowledge and skill in tidy gardens but few naturally forested areas
From my own experience, I can say this really works. Part of my front garden was planted up with young trees for instant effect (and although I knew they were way too close together, I just accepted that I would be removing/cutting some down later on). The area just shot up like mustard and cress. For the last 2 years I have been removing plants because it's such a jungle I can't get to the raspberries. When I realised the front garden was growing faster because of the dense planting, I decided to put extra plants into a hedgerow along the top of the garden. Within months, it stopped being a gappy little weakling, with blocks of trees suddenly soaring upwards.
This is great.I have a front garden food forest.The confusion of the neighbours drives me barmy sometimes,they just don't know what to think outside of their conventional concepts of gardening.
I have Queen Anne's lace amongst my tomatoes and my neighbors hate it because they try desperately to keep that wild plant from taking over their orderly yards.
Dr. Miyawaki's famous method is based on careful observation of natural forests around ancient Japanese Shrines, which were sacred lands and off-limits for farming, logging, living, or hunting. The concept is incredibly simple, create a self-sustaining forest (i.e. eco-system) with diverse native species...and let nature decide. The most important part would be soil preparation. Early forests planted by Dr. Miyawaki in the 1970s can be find at Yokohama National University Campus or Nippon Steel's Ohita plant. (They look like jungles after half a century.) Japanese companies sometimes planted small-scale Miyawaki-style forests on their production sites abroad, so the efficacy was always known. Tree-planting was mostly for spiritual or cultural ritual. As long as they're native species which suit native insects, birds, flowers...the method should work anywhere in the world.
@@UMADBRO64 I'm not sure that's "mythologizing". Japan screwed up in the past, and now they are fixing it. That sounds pretty functional to me. People all over the world have screwed up their environment. How many are fixing it?
Not exactly “let nature decide”. This method will heavily favor fast-growing pioneer species but will stifle successional forest habitats. It will take several stages of stand removal to get the desired stand composition. The method is essentially manipulating plants to dedicate resources into growing upwards first rather than into crown and root development. Let’s hope GB doesn’t suffer windstorms in the near future.
Well it makes sense. Plants are competing for sun but also sheltering each other from the wind and generating new soil through leaf shedding every year which keeps localized immediate temperature around individual plants higher and thus their growth cycle is a longer. It will look much different in about 10 years when tall growing trees outgrown medium ones and 10 years after that when even medium growing trees outgrow shrubs and ground level plants. Weak individual plants will die due to lack of sunshine and due to competition for resources in the soil (and water during dry years) which is ok because that is how real forest works.
I have to remind myself, coming from a biology background, that not everyone has been introduced to ideas like this. I love this method personally, it mimics natural progression very well and creates a very healthy microbiome. It warms my heart to see so many people talking about it 😊
It seems like burying a few logs taken from nearby natural areas would help to inoculate the soil. Buried decomposing logs also add nutrients and act to sponge up water needed later during the dry season.
I don't know if you can really get away with that early on, but it's probably worth trying. It usually begins happening entirely on its own as a forest transitions into secondary & old growth status.
Hugelculture. You can also inoculate the soil using the Jadam method of finding beneficial microbes under the leaf litter of the biggest tree in a nearby forest and growing it in a bucket of water with potato as the food for the microbes.
*nathandale* ---- Quote ---- _'It seems like burying a few logs taken from nearby natural areas would help to inoculate the soil'_ You'd need to be sure the logs don't contain the root killing fungus - Phytophthora. ----- Not everything in the soil or logs is friendly.
@@PaxAlotin-j6r That is a valuable point. It is best practice to not move plant and soil materials more than a short distance to avoid spreading pests and pathogens. Although Phytophthora are not fungi, there root pathogen fungi like Armillaria. In contrast, there are some fungi like Hypholoma that can protect trees with their colonies, which could be spread with a colonized log.
@@nathandale3415 Thanks for the updated information.. Back in the my day (1970's) Phytophthora was classed as a Fungus -- - but it appears that Cladistics changed its classification shortly afterwards.
I have a front garden food forest,that used to be just lawn.I employed what i learnt,about habitats and ecosystems,studying conservation and land management,in the 90s, to provide food for my family and the local wildlife. This concept is completely lost on my neighbours who have more traditional ideas about garden use.I explain to them about the benefits of eating fresh fruit n veg combined with biodiversity,but my words are lost on them. Im happy to see ideas such as this spreading.
I live in a rural area in Belgium. Most of my neighbours only have lawn. But some have vegetable gardens. We've noticed that "lazy plant it all together" can work wonderfully or be a disaster. Some benefit from weeds/other plants around and others are smothered. It's a learning curve.
@@mffmoniz2948 That's interesting to hear.I have a constant battle with bindweed,other than that, it's just coping with overabundance and pruning.The apples are looking good this year and should produce great cider,fingers crossed.
I started a front garden, too, a few years ago. Little by little I keep taking away small areas of grass. My husband said, "I see what you're doing...I want my lawn." I'm hoping to win him over to edible landscaping and permaculture. I leave him a little token lawn. 😅
There is a valid research that says 'Mother trees' are key for survival in the conventional method. Basically, if you plant only pine trees, you need one big established pine-tree to rear them up. Because the same species can share nutrients and moisture. Therefore, the faster they connect, by root. The faster, they can help one another.
They also drown out other species. Each area is different. Fire is bad and doesn't sequester carbon so we have to use active management strategies. This is a great method to establish a forest but we can't apply that to maintaining or improving a forest. Selective logging is a vitally important tool to combat climate change and provide habitat. A great example is tree plantations. NOT GOOD. As the plants grow it is important to do selective pruning. In this way we can move that carbon either into the soil or sequester it in our homes. We can be mother natures greatest ally. She can't make this planet livable for all of us on her own. She needs our help or she will bite back. Active management is necessary.
@@frictionhitch fire isn't necessarily bad, in many areas it's an important disturbance which stimulates plant growth. The grasslands and savannas of north america especially rely on these disturbances
While that very much applies to american pastures and savannah, it isn't true for most native English forests, in those cases fire disturbance just leads to the beginning of the end for the forest as grazing increases, and of course even in the us the fire has to be very controlled or it could cause a lot of damage@@dandelionappreciator9712
Makes sense. There are many bacteria and fungi that actively produce beneficial by-products when they feed off the roots of the strong trees, which could benefit weaker trees around it as well. Another aspect that came to mind is water retention of the soil. The more sparse they are, the easier the water can leave the area. A more densely planted crop will retain more moisture in the air (trees lose water through transpiration), and reduce evaporation of water from the soil.
@@dandelionappreciator9712 There are zero forests left in America. Out of control fireis how you get the outback like in Australia. The Aborigines didn't know. WE DO! Fire is lazy and it leads to poor results. The answers are way more complicated than that. Many species properly managed. You have to managing the soil all the wayto the canopy. We want fire resistant forests before we start fires. Clearing farmland and forests with fire have lead to deserts all around the word. Again there is nothing natural left. We need active mechanical management. We are smarter than just willy nilly fire. We have to be because our damaged ecosystems are not prepared to recover.
Awww, you have found my second favourite renaturing initiative in addition to Mossy Earth - Planet Wild. Really love to see you working together, too! 💚
This is really, really interesting. Things are getting dire, fast. We need to be able to invest very scarce resources into high return projects like this.
Ive recently seen how fast forest can grow when dormant seeds in the ground we activated, like in the recreational park where I live, just two years it’s similar to the sights in this video. Awesome
How is this a high return project??? I've been involved in many experimental projects such as this, and the #1 problem will be money, especially as you can't get a direct monetary return out of this.
I had noticed that sewing seeds closer together than the seed packet recommended helped the plants grow better in our (US) southwest desert environment. I believe that it helped them to keep the humidity higher in a place where humidity is normally quite low. Similar factors are at work in the Japanese technique. By having many layers of plant life of all different heights, they all help each other make maximum use of resources. Any water will stay in that area longer, and multiply the effect of any rainfall.
Creeping garden plants are this way as well, they help one another kill out weeds while retaining more nutrients, water, and sheltering against wind. Also an entire patch of flowering plants attracts a lot more pollinators because it is a very dense with food for those pollinators. Sometimes planting things very close together helps. Usually when you plant creeping varieties of plants, and succulents the very first thing you work is the soil (add compost and sand and potash)
For large scale reforestation projects, wouldn't it be advised to plant small high density patches in this method, leaving areas untouched in-between. In comparison to a homologous low density planting of trees(as done usually). I suppose as soon as these patches of high density reach sexual maturity they will start to spread outwards. This in turn leads to a forest with varying ages of trees, aiding the natural cycle of forest growth.
Thanks so much for spreading the word about Planet Wild! Can't believe I did not know them before - some of their projects are just mind-blowing. Became their supporter after watching a few videos.
This specific method/name is new to me but my experience is that high density planting often produces better results, although it ultimately negatively impacts production in a temperate food forest. In fact I'm about to do some selective thinning in one area to open up the canopy and increase light levels. At the same time I'm increasing density in another part of the site. Thanks for the video.
@@BryceGarlingno they're correct. Denser plantings aren't always better as it can restrict light to the lower levels. Density can be good but it depends on what you're planting. An oak or walnut may want more space to spread its crown for example. Thinning is a pretty common practice for the long term health of a stand.
Most forests, even in prehistoric times, were naturally thinned out by wildlife grazing creating clearings and pathways through the denser foliage allowing for sunlight to reach lower levels and greater biodiversity. Further, natural storms and forest fires often would clear new areas for growth. So a natural forest would end up being a patchwork of slightly denser growth interspaced with less denser areas and clearings, with old trees lying around on the forest floor decomposing adding to the various species of forest flora and fauna-and eventually soil health.
I volunteer with Trees for Cities, and on planting days, we either do standards (trees that are a few years old, most at least 2m tall) or bare-root whips (saplings, normally about 1 foot). When we do standards, depending on the number of volunteers, we can plant a dozen or so trees. A team of 5 volunteers can plant maybe 2 trees in a day. When we are doing the whips, in a Mikawaki influenced method*, we can end up planting hundreds or thousands. Each volunteer can individually plant maybe 30 trees. The sites look amazing a few years down the line. I always prefer the whips days vs the standards days. *It is a bit of a simplification or compromise due to restrains on time, budget and the work being carried out mostly by non-experts.
Dr Miyawaki has been doing this type of planting for years. It involves working from the ground up - soil first then plants. It’s amazing what he has accomplished.
This was literally where the idea came from. Japan required new factories to plant some amount of forest on the land, and Miyawaki created the method to suit this need.
@@micahwest5347 Not really; industry is moving to China (and, by now, to yet other countries) because wages are lower and labour exploitation is easier to get away with.
This misses a lot of nuance which admittedly is really hard to get across on TH-cam. The facts as far as I'm aware though is that this is not the best or most economical way to create high quality woodland. In fact just because a tree grows fast doesn't mean it's healthy. The reality is these trees planted densely together are in fierce competition with eachother and to create good quality woodland with structural diversity significant thinning will have to occur. Arguably it's okay for smaller plots, shelterbelts etc. but this is not a suitable solution to our nature crisis by any means, it's an expensive quick fix to creating an urban green space over a better but slower method.
I should add that the real crux of my point here is the objective of planting and quality of the end habitat. If the goal is actual woodland this doesn't work out cheaper or better as shrub/faster growing species win out over the slower growing ones e.g. oak and you end up with a dense scrub if you don't thin and a poor not very structurally diverse woodland if you do thin.
I did a reforestation project on our property. You always start with planting the trees densely and the thining out comes later. Fast growing trees are especially good for large surfaces otherwise scrub (thorns and bushes) will outgrow the saplings fast and rob the light so they die. Of course you can start with bigger trees but in our case we planted only a few and looked what would grow where naturally as nature knows best. But we had to cut back the scrub at least twice a year to prevent them to overgrow the little trees otherwise the project would have taken even longer, as only a few trees would have survived the darkness. Birches are pretty good as a starter they grow fast, don’t get super old and let a lot of light come through their leaves, perfect for protecting little trees like oak and walnut- we did not even have to plant them, luckily. Our project started roughly ten years ago and has already 3-8m high trees like oak, walnut, chestnut, beeches, birches, Douglas fir, hazelnut and wild cherry trees to name a few. There are so many birds, boars and deer in there, it is lovely.
Also the whole comparison is flawed, because various methods are heavily contextual. Planting individual trees with good spacing between them is absolutely nowhere near the same amount of effort and resources compared to analysing the soil, turning it, adding compost and supplements, planting 10 times as many trees and more. Obviously it has its place, but imagine the amount of resources you'd need to get the great green wall working in China. It's utterly absurd.
@@maudbrewster9413the fact is that if we as humans are going to recreate a forest for whatever reason… we’ll have to come in and copies back …. Is it easier to control scrub or trees? And this idea that it’s more expensive … maybe but maybe not… depends on what’s available and the planters knowledge… it’s good to know all the methods so one can make decisions on which method to apply… in other planting objectives, like a potager, I personally like to use counter or table height beds for lettuces, herbs, zuchinni et al… but, lots of other stuff in the ground too… then there’s all kinds of other factors… I just always look for opportunities to establish a ‘low input’ area (permaculture), but, it takes time… and there just is no one size fits all… people need to know how stuff grows in their climates and microclimates… esp if recreating a forest…. I plan to use a corner of my property (a quarter acre of my property) to create a forest but I know very little about my area …. I’m out of my lifelong California coast and desert… in high altitude forest w pine …. I was orig planning on adding more piñon… but, I’m not sure how well that will go since I just heard that they are super
I'm not here to argue which methods works better. But I'm here to point out...that whoever started the act first, the one that acted to have a change to help nature is far better than the one with just words on his or her mouth..... People are just murmuring, but their words are never been put into action.... I know someone from Finland, their family doesn't know anything about planting trees but they started to plant trees in those 10 acres of Barren Land. Yes, some died some survive....they learn from it. Then continues, and now that land is almost forested.
The Miyawaki method also encourages a favourable microclimate for young plants it seems - providing more shade, more wind shelter and more moisture in the soil because of that
I read somewhere, decades ago, that one should leave a "corner" of one's land "wild" or all naturally grown trees, shrubs and vegetation (to encourage natural insects etc. Of course, this works fine if there is sufficient room, but even a small plot should be encouraged, apparently). This method reminds me of this.
Some Indian researchers came to a similar conclusion and held a TED talk about it... Similarly, there's a talk on how to make the desert green again. I believe that one was by some Israeli researchers. Also, there are multiple talks about fungi and what they can do (really impressive). From a practical perspective (considering so-called food forests), there are a few additional things to consider: 1) Nature doesn't grow all plants at the same time, or rather there are phases where different plants thrive. For instance, vines need large trees to thrive, bananas and tomatoes need windbreaks, and banana trees need the leaves of larger trees to gain enough nutrients... Shade, soil- and water retention also play pivotal roles. This is where pioneer plants may come in. They need less nutrients and can handle harsher environments. Once the soil doesn't get blown or washed away, shrubs and small trees pump water up and share it with plants that can't reach as deep. 2) To mimic this, you need to be conscious about which plants can grow fast without support. Then, you can cut down some plants to make space for more sensitive plants that require shade and the established root network... Unlike regular forests, you can chop up the undesired plants and let them rot in place. 3) In the case of a food forest, you need paths through it to harvest your crop. It is tempting to align these paths with the path of the sun, but wind funneling can be pretty bad. The same goes for water runoff on slopes... The overcrowding effect may be beneficial at the beginning, but in the long term, it does hurt plants. Especially when you have multiple plants of the same family in proximity, you want to remove the weakest so that pests don't take over. The remaining plants can take up the space rather quickly. 4) You can't just constantly take from your food forest without returning something. Most crops are greedy. Therefore they must be diluted with other plants that fix nitrogen or provide biomass (leaves, needles...). 5) You either cover the ground with wood chips, or some ground cover plant, or weeds will take over. Once trees are tall enough, they'll make their own ground cover, and ground cover plants will receline to a few spots.
Some research into these forests in Ireland has shown that it is unnecessary to turn over the soil, but laying a thick mulch over your land, does at least as well. I have never seen long term results for this method. What does it look like in 20...40 years. I have about 10 acres, which I plan to rewild, but it's so hard to know how to start. There is a selfish bit of me wanting it to look 'nice' and allow me access, but I'm kinda missing the point with that thinking.
With that much land you could have a variety of uses. You could have a veg garden, fruit/forest garden, fertility patches and/or grassland for feeding biomass to the above, some livestock and even plant trees for firewood/fencing/growing mushrooms/timber and other products. Then just all the bits you don't get around to doing anything with will start to rewild by themselves 😆 to be fair the human uses don't have to exclude wildlife either (although livestock and veges do perhaps more than the others). To fully rewild somewhere you don't need to do anything apart from keep neighbouring livestock off the land - sheep in particular are the enemy of trees and I reckon some farmers will 'accidentally' knock down walls if they see a bit of land they think isn't being used for some free extra grazing. I had a field in Lancashire a few years ago and the first thing we had to do was drive a load of sheep off it and rebuild the dry stone wall where they'd been getting in
Oh I think there’s definitely room for that! (The nice looking, accessible part.) And I don’t think it’s selfish at all. When rewilding, it does take a season or 3 to look nice, but that’s true of spaced out planting too- plants always need time to settle in, fill out, and make their best shape. In terms of access, small, permeable paths are good for a variety of reasons, like airflow and access for larger wildlife. Where I live in Central Oregon, the deer are basically just big squirrels, in that we coexist super casually with them. If we don’t put paths through our new landscape, they will make their own, and stomp on things we don’t want stomped. On our property, we did our best to plant some sacrificial plants along the paths that deer like to eat, with a layer of deer-resistant plants behind them, to keep them from exploring into the new plantings. It has worked pretty well. Anyway, if you don’t know where to start, there are plenty of people and organizations who will give you a native species cheat sheet, and you can just pick 2 or three of each layer (tree, shrub, ground) and put those in. Your land is lucky to have you 💚
The original myawaki forest around the campus of his universiteit in Japan is about 40 years old and an absolute jungle, I mean that in a good way! If you search it on youtube or Google you will find it 👍
I was unaware of this method when I began my tree planting on 3 acres here in the west of Ireland! I simply followed my intuition and planted densely as well as mulching. The results are phenomenal after 20 years I have documented this on several social media platforms and also written, a book all about it.
Love it. It's surprisingly what you focus on when you don't have much space, but still want the benefits. And then, how it can be applied to other settings.
Hype and fashion only. They have built one 2 years ago in my local park. The cost was easily > £ 10k. Just 20 yards away is a 10x larger woodland, and grass and young trees around it, that spontaneously want to grow are cut each year. Bla bla about "CO2 neutral", but they had to cut trees to make the fence, a lot of transport costs etc. Instead, they could just stop cutting grass (and bushes and trees) that want to grow in that place without any human help. Those organisations talk myths and lies, but I found only one weak scientific paper on the topic (from Europe, I think Sardinia), and it did NOT show any obvious advantages. Mind, that initial density is around 25 000 trees per hectare plus 10 inch layer of woodchips, soil improvers, fencing and whatnot. From my research - it's a hype (and scam) by some non-profit organizations, at least in Europe. Maybe in South/East Asia they have plants and climate more suitable for this method.
@@hotbit7327 You keep pushing lies with one single anecdote and literally ignoring there are literal research papers showing you are wrong. Anecdotes about a TWO YEAR program is not nearly what you think it is.
@@WmJared Please point me to those "literal research papers". I only know one from Sardinia, which provides some insights but also has several limitations. I'm happy to learn and change my views.
@@hotbit7327 I literally responded with four articles in another comment, but YOU are the one making false and harmful claims without doing the barest HINT of research. YOU are the one doing harm, and you utterly failed to google a goddamn thing before YOU SAID WITH YOUR CHEST NOT A SINGLE RESEARCH ARTICLE BACKS THEIR BENEFITS, when the fucking overall survey of ALL Miyawaki research literally dropped in fucking February you reactionary liar. "This paper performed a bibliographic review to provide a comprehensive overview of relevant research regarding the Miyawaki method and the benefits over the traditional reforestation techniques, identifying gaps in the literature that could inform future research and implementation. The 27 articles found were divided into 5 thematic categories: (1) plantation method, (2) technical results (plant growth, survival rates, and soil conditions), (3) mitigatory effects (climate change, natural disasters, and urban heat island), (4) social aspect, and (5) other. The results indicate that there are significant benefits of the method over the traditional approach, primarily better and faster growth. The method also presents additional benefits such as social cohesion and natural disaster mitigation. The main limitations that were identified include investment cost, survival rate, and genetic diversity. "
First and foremost: What a wonderful method. I hope to see much more of this in the future. I’d love to see a version with minimal artificial soil disturbance. Based on our knowledge of mycorrhizal fungi, I’m concerned turning over the soil and then inoculating with outside species may be doing more harm than good. Based on my observation of land that has been compacted, I think it might be better to leave the soil the right way up and mostly undisturbed with just a few patches of disturbed soil mimicking the action of boar and moles. Extra worms could be introduced into the disturbed patches and they can probably be trusted to introduce mycorrhizal fungi more effectively than we can. I’d dump a massive amount of compost on top to give the worms something to draw down into the compacted soil, creating burrows and taking oxygen with them. It would take more effort and cost more, but for absolutely maximising the health of the micro forest, I’d also direct sow as much as I could, or transplant as very young seedlings before the roots have reached the sides of the pots. Fascinating!
Well particularly in this case, the mycorrhiza layer may have either been missing or completely unsuitable. The species that will be interfacing with turf grasses in a compacted athletics field would be completely different than those colonizing shrubs and trees, if they hadn't been killed from whatever chemical practices were used to maintain the turf. Tilling was likely necessary and, given the types of people who would invest in a project like this, not performed willy nilly.
This gives me so many ideas for what could be done locally, imagine every roundabout and road side with this, we could increase biodiversity all across the country. If politicians knew about this they could be hailed as making their area truly lush and green with minimal expense.
Nice to see this Video. My Wife worked for an organisation wich provided these tiny forest to any community of city in the Netherlands. They even made a variant voor a small lot, 6 m2 for example. This is called a Tuiny forest (Tuin stands for garden) and we planted one ourself in our small front lawn. The growth of the trees and plants are exeptional!
I get the feeling the algorithm has seen my back yard. Due to health problems, volunteer trees have filled my back yard--you can't walk through it, it's so dense. Not going to leave them, but it's going to take an immense effort to cut down, and I'm disabled. Seriously, my back yard is just as dense as what you're showing us.
I've been gardening organically for years, but treated it as "no chemicals", rather than "maximising biology".. Recently we went "no-dig" and this year trying my hand at compost teas for the first time and beginning to see real positive changes.. we have a boundary where this principle of overplanting with the full range of native local plants would be excellent to create a shelter belt. I followed one of the links and there they are essentially saying organic rich soil, aerated, mulched, compost teas etc, everything we've been working towards in the last couple of years. Biodiversity begins with the soil.. but the soil is a complex living environment that lives in conjunction with a complex living environment above ground. It's wonderful to see just how much difference you get when you apply all these ideas together alongside the older way of doing things.
I know absolutely sod all about plants and gardening etc. and no idea why this was recommended but I see this and I just immediately thought this would be pretty much perfect for a golf course. There’s a ton of space that they will carve the course around and they could plant so much dense forest like this around the course
If you ever fancy teyimg this out up in Angus, east Scotland we have a large community garden that is changing the way people think about growing food and living with nature, feel free to get in touch 🌱😉
This is exactly what I have been doing on my own little property here on the Atlantic coast of Canada. Where I planted, I planted densely, but I’ve also just allowed native species to come up on their own. The results have been astounding and it’s only been three years.
I noticed a lot of comments seem to downplay the importance and study of this planting method but I think this video does do a great job at introducing the topic in a way that is easily digestible and encourages further research. I've seen plenty of articles and videos that reference practices utilizing natural phenomena to encourage more efficient and sustainable plant growth without ever touching on important concepts that encourage further research by the viewer such as mycorrhizal fungi and the importance of biodiversity and layering of different species of plants. It's videos like this that encouraged me and many others to pursue an education in environmental sciences. Great video all around! Good job!
Love to see the technique but it seems like there are multiple variables between the control & experimental groups. The dirt was tilled, the plants had more diversity, and were closer together. All the grass growing in the control group is stunting the trees. I'd love to see a control group with tilled dirt next.
This works like this because the roots release nutrients into the soil and the other plants pick them up and use them and the process just repeats. Different species release different nutrients. When the plants on the bottom die it fertilizes the soil with something called necromass and that’s why it’s self staining after a short period of time
This is the first time I have heard this called the Miyazaki Method. I studied "Do nothing growing" by Masanobu Fukuoka in '83. His veggie gardens were so "overgrown" it was hard to find the fruits. But very little maintenance was required, with great success. Why? He taught to study nature, observe, learn, and "on principle" do nothing" to obstruct it. Does nature plow? No? Then don't disturb the layers. Too compacted? Plant something used to growing in hard ground, then follow with your mixed crops. He didn't grow rice under water, yet had the highest yields of healthier rice. He developed direct seed planting in deserts, by coating, broadcasting before a rain.
I created a tiny forest using the Miyawaki method in Chile with Mediterranean forest species, and it really works. It’s been 2 years now. I used drip irrigation during the first summer
This sounds like a great concept! I went to a talk last year (in Kent) where we were educated about how long horn cattle can shape the fields and forests just by doing what they're normally doing. Turning over soil with their hoofs, eating leaves etc, taking off branches and even felling trees if it gets too dense, it was really fascinating. And the cows were just chilling in the field behind us. I'm so glad that good things are happening in Kent, we really need a better approach to nature over here xD
I'm interested in what will they be like in 30 years, due to the closeness of the planting? Will these mini forests have a bonsai effect and trees grow smaller than if they were planted with normal spacing? Or due to the density will some of the trees outcompete other ones over the years, so you end up with just a few big trees on the site? I have watched and read quite a bit about these mini forests but I have never seen or read any mention of what the temperate mini forests will end up being like.
@@njpringle on the long run, self-thinning due to the lack of sunlight will kill most of the plants, leaving a few standing adult trees with a shade tolerant understory, which is why this is such a waste of resources
Ive accidentally done this to my driveway garden. The birds created an oasis in 4 years. Theres now like 5 species of trees and several bushing and some ground crawling species very dense in an area about 8 x 10 foot area. (sorry i never learned metric)
I can see in my garden where i got overzealous at the nursery buying new things. There are areas just crammed. But those are the areas that grow best. In my shade garden, especially, where there are short , delicate ferns on the bottom layer, and in the summer they are safely shaded by large hostas and heuchera, it's a wall of greens and white and purple. Other areas are crammed similarly. However, the Hydrangeas i gave lots of room to grow, and THOSE are still tiny (relative to how big they should be by now). I've been suspecting that putting some little plants close and under them might help.
not just turn the ground.. in the links they make the point they are using compost teas which can add a lot of life if done correctly. This is an essential element. Turn gound to add air, add elements to soil if major parts are missing (not chemicals, rather humus etc) add fungi, prototzoa, nematodes etc through compost teas. Full spectrum bio diversity below ground.
Funny I just thought the opposite. Though there are common elements of mixing species and taking the layers of the forest into account, and the result look somewhat similar. The fertilizing, removing the grass that was there, turning, make it definitely not permaculture. Permaculture also focuses on edible plants, Miyawaki is only about afforestation.
I think it goes without saying that injecting high levels of plant diversity into an otherwise deprived area, yields more biodiversity than throwing some trees in a grassy field. Seems a bit of a skewed comparison to me. If the sparser tree planting was done in conjunction with the reintroduction of grassland herbaceous species, I think biodiversity comparisons would even out a lot more.
Yeah a lot of this seems like, well obviously, but the thing is, is that we haven’t changed the way we planet trees, when this method clearly works to establish them very quickly.
I wish there was a well developed method for reproducing prairies, although an understanding of plant succession, soils, and hydrology might make that more possible.
I think the only way we could prove this one way or the other is by a large, controlled experiment. The Miyawaki method is changing several things at once: species number, matching to soil, soil preparation, planting density ... four independent variables already. We really don't know which is the most important.
Saying it's cheaper seems a bit dubious when you're using both more labour, soil amendments and plants than in the other method, whilst any of those can be free they're all still resources - I'd say that's one of the advantages of simple tree planting where you stick in a spade to open a slit and then shove a whip in - it's very quick and easy to do whereas taking the turf off/digging a big area and incorporating amendments is a lot of work and as hard as prepping ground for growing vegetables. I'm sure it produces better results but of course using more time and resources will tend to do that. I did a load of fruit trees and bushes this year and for those it's definitely worth digging and amending the soil but fruit plants are a lot fussier than native non-cultivated species and also the grafted whips can be as much as £30 each so you want to try and give them the best possible chance You can certainly get quick results planting quick growing trees into appropriate soil with wider spacings and no digging - I planted a load of willow on the edge of some drainage ditches in Ireland a few years ago and they got over head height in the first year but then we also had a load of sweet chestnut struggle as the conditions weren't really right. I reckon this method probably helps with drought and also to protect the trees by quickly establishing a zone that's hard for people to get into - also removing mowing from the equation means less trees being killed by equipment which tbf probably helps a lot - I live in leeds now and some of the tree planting here has had very low sucsss rates (probably only about 5% in places) and i reckon a lot of that is because the trees have been mown down because the people who planted them haven't been the people who've done the follow on work. Probably mowing the grass is half the problem anyway - I remember hearing a talk by the guy from the agroforestry research trust where he was saying the most energy efficient/greenest (not necessarily quickest) way of establishing woodland is to just stop mowing completely and let natural succession happen
In think his point about planting a good mix of soil-appropriate trees is important as well. My take-home from this is that no one single factor is key, otherwise everyone would be doing it.
@@anotherfreediver3639 - Maybe but you have to test it and I got from the video that the main difference was that in the bad side the soil was compacted and in the good side the soil had been heavily worked and prepared.
We're rewilding our 1 1/2 acre property in East Tennessee with a native Smoky Mountain forest. This method has inspired me to make my plantings closer together and include a lot more ground level plants between the trees and shrubs.
@@LeaveCurious Plus research shows that doing shared events with donor overlap and sharing information about funds and projects increases donations to both orgs as well as project efficacy. I haven't seen anything about it increasing community engagement, but it may lend to that as well.
A bit silly to call that a test. Do it here in Finland to a couple of square km:s. I just think you do not realize that when you reforest a cut down, it will always look like that Japanese jungle in a few years even you just plant pine or spruce with decent spacing as the seeds are already in the ground for other stuff.
Miyawaki forests are extremely expensive. The ground preparations and the ridiculous amount plants it requires makes it a very impractical method of ecological restoration. This can only work at very small scales as an urban luxury garden.
Also, there is no scientific evidence to back the 99% survival rates you claim. Due to Miyawaki's high density, auto thinning should take place in the short run and survival rates should be very low at 5 years. Finally, you can't say that is "cheaper" just because of survival rates. It is a completely different thing to have an X survival rate of 2.000 plants per hectare than 2.000 plants on a small 500 m2 lot.
@@RestauremosNaturaleza There are studies. its called the Miyawaki method. they did the whole study in 1988. youd find more information on it if you didnt take your view off of one video and instead researched the actual research
@@RestauremosNaturaleza This method is used in natural habitats where the soil of the land goes with the lands native plants. It was never about reestablishing soil in an area that is poor of soil. they avoid poor soiled areas in the study. Maybe go read
Fascinating. I live in the North London Borough of Enfield. The local authority have been trying to provide more trees in some of our local Parks. Trees are normally planted in a row with a plastic housing and a stake in order to keep the planting safe from being eaten or vandalised. As a dog walker I have been able to keep an eye on the progress of the young trees. Generally the progress is very slow. By comparison our local Park stopped the grass cutting of one particular area of the Park. In fact it was ignored. The area is now thick with young trees. No plastic was used. No staking. Yet the whole area is thriving. I hope the Japanese method is adopted by more people.
There are elements of permaculture, but it is not permaculture. It is more syntropic forestry with focus on native vegetation. What'd he say PNV? Potential natural vegetation. Permaculture has a lot of drawbacks, being it is for production using exotic plants that often become dominant monocultures when humans leave or plants escape. Massive damage has been done in Australia from permaculture escapees rendering vast plots of land in a perpetual non-successional state.
@@Uenaeons my understanding is this Japanese system is purely about the layers. That is only one aspect of permaculture. Permaculture prioritises diversity and food production which makes it more sustainable than this system. Food producing trees are more likely to survive many generations of humans. I would like to see specific examples of what you claim happened in Australia
@@ptah23 Check out Florida permaculturists. Most push using Yellow Mexican Sunflowers to chop up and use as mulch. Yellow Mexican Sunflowers are one of the worst invasives here in Florida. Generally only experience, permaculturalists really need to work with native plant people. And I’m not even a native plant absolutist. Also, while fruit trees are great, you still need to plant native trees that our native bees, butterflies & birds use.
Welp. I finally got around to watching this... and about an hour later I've become a member at Planet Wild & have updated my LinkedIn to now officially be a Nature Investor! 😄🌿
At last! A video that considers the different levels of a forest. We've been so bust planting trees and thinking we are reforestering the world. No. We're just planting trees. Not that this is a terrible thing but it is very blinkered. I have a large garden and i live by the side of a forest and i let it grow as wild as i can. The amount of species that have arrived in the last 8 years is incredible. Years ago, i created a video called Green Deserts, channel Taoist poetry. I don't have access to that channel but it shows you the difference between a wild garden and a field. It talks about Masanobo Fukuoka's natural farming.
4 tier canopy to ground layers have featured in Forestry commission literature for decades. Planting at regular intervals allows for predictable harvesting of tree crop. Nurse trees have been used/placed to add density and competition for growth for many years. Objectives in Planting informs the adopted technique.
I planted my front yard like this using native shrubs (Western Oregon). Eight years later, it's an impenetrable brush of currents, spirea and thimbleberry with one Viburnum.
This is so great for quick impact planting which adds huge benefits to the ecosystem , I'm intrigued however that in time as these trees grow, and competition becomes too great for some and the shade becomes very intense for ground cover plants, what happens then ? Another thing I've covered in horticultural corses is that density can lead to a lack of air flow and increase the likely hood and impact of disease? Is the idea to max out with planting so as the forest grows the loss of some trees is natural and just adds to the cycle of decay and nutrients release or is the idea to keep the forest as a mini forest covering a small patch of land and if so what are the maintenance requirements to keep this size ?
When looking at gardens that were built using the conventional way, and then look at gardens where natural processes were given priorities or look at natural woodlands, the end result always stands out: A conventional garden which was made without planning ahead always becomes an eyesore, while in nature everything grows without following a designer's plan and yet everything balances out so well with everything else, and the result is always appealing.
If you do this is small patches it is essentially a forest edge type environment, means a fair bit of light for a lot of the plants and a forest edge is the most active / biodiverse part of a forest anyway. Planting farther apart is a more savanah or silvopasture type environment, also valuable, but a very different one. Silvopasture is more inviting for grazers (although if that is livestock you want to protect the young trees).
The dense packing will also help keep the wind out, which you wouldn't think would be a big issue, but lots of wind can cause a plant to grow short and squat, to better withstand it
It's funny, I was talking about this just the other day and now it pops up in my recommendations. My wife and I were discussing how beautiful certain parts of Asia are with their cherry trees that seem like they have just always been there. Some form of this technique seems to have always existed throughout parts of Asia, likely stemming from a common source. Comparing cultivated land (fruit trees etc) in Korea and Japan to Europe is night and day visually. When looking to restore nature, look to nature for the means, it seems like a no brainer but so few seem to do it.
It makes sense. I love tulip trees and planted quite a few. For those who don't know tulip trees (Liriodendron Tulipifera) grow very fast (approximately 6 feet/year). The soil where I've planted them is the same. The ones planted alone with plenty of space barely put any height on. The ones with competition near by put on around the max amount of feet each year. I thought it was due to the competition itself. Kind of like a race. They take their sweet time if they have a massive lead, but if someone else is closing in they kick into high gear. I didn't really consider symbiotic relationships aside from nitrogen fixing and mycorrhizal fungi. It's probably a combo of all of those things though. It's truly wild how balanced nature is. All of these factors and maybe more we don't consider make a huge difference. The world is so intricate and amazing.
Great to see! Although I don’t agree that there is a ‘conventional’ method of tree planting, there’s loads of different ways tree are planted across GB. High density planting of mixed species is very similar to the Japanese method described here and can be seen across a fair few places in the UK!
Sounds great, but I wonder how the shrubs & flowers that grow on lower levels get enough light to survive. 🤔 Especially after a few years. Any thoughts to help me out?
if they dont get light there wont be many at all. using this method you'd need to plant herbs, shrubs, and flowers on the outer side surrounding the forest
It would be interesting to see the control area getting the same soil prep treatment to see if it is the density of the planting that makes it grow so much better.
This is how the Indigenous folk of Turtle Island created a network of generations old, continent-wide food/medicine forests that the settlers thought of as an "Eden blessed by god"....they _paid attention_ to how nature thrives best, and then chose to work _with_ it....not against it 🖖🏾✨
There is a scientific experiment led by INSA in Toulouse that shows the differences using different planting method This kind of forest is 4 meters height after 3 year The other forests with trees spaced are only 2 meters
Want to restore the planet's ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? The first 200 people to join Planet Wild will get the first month for free at - planetwild.com/r/leavecurious/join or use my code CURIOUS7 later.
@@Naturemyonlyfriend-dh3tg That's amazing! Welcome to the community 💚
Loving this. Just signed up and can't wait to see my first contribution doing good in nature.
Loving this partnership. Just signed up and literally can't wait to see my contribution in action.
This is a scam by con people trying to your money by implying if you give them money greens will go. Why do they need money? All they need to do is publish and provide results to planters. This is not an expensive proposition and doesn’t need that much cash. One philanthropist could take care of all their money needs.
Just report & ignore
Perhaps a botanist in Japan developed this new method because the Japanese learned the lesson the hard way. The picture you included in 1:00 shows a dense Japanese Cedar forest in the background. Chances are that the forest in this picture is not natural, but a result of Japan's massive reforestation/aforestation project in the mid-1900s. They planted a lot of Japanese Cedar because it grew fast and their straight trunks were good for lumber. Fast forward half a century, These forests are causing serious allergy outbreaks every spring, and their shallow and weak roots sometimes cause the whole mountainside to slide and collapse in a heavy rain. If there's a country that is interested in and eager to find out how not to ruin a forest with monocultures and prefers healthier and more diverse ones, Japan has to be one of the most fitting.
I was going to mention exactly this. Over dense forestry plantation is proven to be negative in the long run. It looks really impressive at the beginning because all that growth seems like thriving, but it's really just desperation for light. In a natural system, big, old trees, shade out young trees that try to start below them and choke them out, so there's a natural system by which trees space themselves far enough apart that they don't compete for light and leave enough filtering through for lower-level vegetation to sustain themselves as well. Dense plantations where all the trees start at once eventually outgrow the understory and completely shade it out because they're growing too close together. You're left with eerily empty and overly uniform stands of trees with little to no biodiversity below the canopy level, which is the only place left to get enough sunlight to grow. So while this is great for forestry, it's terrible for rewilding.
@@QuesoCookies I disagree with this as long as the tree species are diverse. If they all grew at the same time, as in a monoculture, this happens 100%, but if you have a variety of plants that grow with different patterns, different light needs, and at differing rates, I could see this not being an issue.
@@floob247 Diversity isn't magic bullet. Just because something is diverse, it doesn't guarantee it will be better. Trees don't only shade out their own species, they have to shade out all the others as well, or else they will remain in competition for the light. So, sure, with a variety of trees, you'll eventually find out which ones grow the tallest and will eventually shade out everything around them, and instead of the 75% of the thinly planted stand all making it to old age and eventually filling out every niche, you have 10% of the densely planted stand growing tall enough to win all the light, killing anything unfortunate enough to be growing beneath them, and requiring the understory to start over, but only if they happen not to be planted too closely to each other to hinder that.
@@QuesoCookies Rewatch the video then, I don't know what to tell you.
Edit: I can think of two massive trees on my parents farm that have grown together for around 100 years. A willow and a cottonwood.
@@floob247 I did watch it. The results are deceptive. You're not seeing a huge success, the stand with 5x more density is current 5x more dense, no surprise. And you're not seeing everything shoot up because it's so healthy, everything is becoming very flimsy but tall, a condition called legginess, which is a well known response plants have to insufficient light exposure. They're all trying to get taller than everything around them to ensure they're getting enough light. It doesn't take much knowledge or critical thinking to recognize this method is flawed and these results are both short-lived and misrepresented.
As a hobby gardener, I started planting drought tolerant gardens in my yard like this. It looks “busy” when it’s new with lots of little plants close together, but by year 2 it was thriving with minimal water in our hot California summers.
You mean you are a Hobbit like the Japanese man LMAO
As a hobby gardener I watched my noob neighbor try this. Pretty in the first year, second and third years were meh and this year he hacked it all off cause it looked dead and was an eyesore.
My backyard is a jungle... but I put in work all the time.
Those look like weeds, this is common and natural here in India
@@silentstormstudio4782 well India has a bit more acreage 😉 He does mention this is a unique problem in the UK towards the end of the video.
He's talking about trying to get habitats back for wildlife and for a healthy landscape. Not just for "tidy and pleasing to your eye". I believe the Brits have enough knowledge and skill in tidy gardens but few naturally forested areas
Or move
From my own experience, I can say this really works.
Part of my front garden was planted up with young trees for instant effect (and although I knew they were way too close together, I just accepted that I would be removing/cutting some down later on).
The area just shot up like mustard and cress. For the last 2 years I have been removing plants because it's such a jungle I can't get to the raspberries.
When I realised the front garden was growing faster because of the dense planting, I decided to put extra plants into a hedgerow along the top of the garden. Within months, it stopped being a gappy little weakling, with blocks of trees suddenly soaring upwards.
Awesome!!
This is great.I have a front garden food forest.The confusion of the neighbours drives me barmy sometimes,they just don't know what to think outside of their conventional concepts of gardening.
@@yorkshirecoastadventures1657This is amazing! Trust the process, some day you neighbors want your fruits too
Keep growing🌱🫶
I have Queen Anne's lace amongst my tomatoes and my neighbors hate it because they try desperately to keep that wild plant from taking over their orderly yards.
Where can you find more detailed literature on this method?
Dr. Miyawaki's famous method is based on careful observation of natural forests around ancient Japanese Shrines, which were sacred lands and off-limits for farming, logging, living, or hunting. The concept is incredibly simple, create a self-sustaining forest (i.e. eco-system) with diverse native species...and let nature decide. The most important part would be soil preparation. Early forests planted by Dr. Miyawaki in the 1970s can be find at Yokohama National University Campus or Nippon Steel's Ohita plant. (They look like jungles after half a century.)
Japanese companies sometimes planted small-scale Miyawaki-style forests on their production sites abroad, so the efficacy was always known. Tree-planting was mostly for spiritual or cultural ritual. As long as they're native species which suit native insects, birds, flowers...the method should work anywhere in the world.
Thanks for the extra info. Did not know that the areas around shrines were sacred.
@@UMADBRO64 I'm not sure that's "mythologizing". Japan screwed up in the past, and now they are fixing it. That sounds pretty functional to me. People all over the world have screwed up their environment. How many are fixing it?
Not exactly “let nature decide”. This method will heavily favor fast-growing pioneer species but will stifle successional forest habitats. It will take several stages of stand removal to get the desired stand composition.
The method is essentially manipulating plants to dedicate resources into growing upwards first rather than into crown and root development.
Let’s hope GB doesn’t suffer windstorms in the near future.
Well it makes sense. Plants are competing for sun but also sheltering each other from the wind and generating new soil through leaf shedding every year which keeps localized immediate temperature around individual plants higher and thus their growth cycle is a longer. It will look much different in about 10 years when tall growing trees outgrown medium ones and 10 years after that when even medium growing trees outgrow shrubs and ground level plants. Weak individual plants will die due to lack of sunshine and due to competition for resources in the soil (and water during dry years) which is ok because that is how real forest works.
But these weak individuals that die create a decaying wood supply that adds tons of carbon to the soil, essentially creating compost for the others.
I have to remind myself, coming from a biology background, that not everyone has been introduced to ideas like this. I love this method personally, it mimics natural progression very well and creates a very healthy microbiome. It warms my heart to see so many people talking about it 😊
Lol, condescending
@@angelmartin7310 go donate some more for 1 like = 1 tree planted bs, where tree is industrial and meant for paper or lumber and has no life on it...
Not condescending, just a fact.
@@MiljaHahto Coming from philosophy, I can confirm this is condescending.
It seems like burying a few logs taken from nearby natural areas would help to inoculate the soil. Buried decomposing logs also add nutrients and act to sponge up water needed later during the dry season.
I don't know if you can really get away with that early on, but it's probably worth trying. It usually begins happening entirely on its own as a forest transitions into secondary & old growth status.
Hugelculture. You can also inoculate the soil using the Jadam method of finding beneficial microbes under the leaf litter of the biggest tree in a nearby forest and growing it in a bucket of water with potato as the food for the microbes.
*nathandale* ---- Quote ---- _'It seems like burying a few logs taken from nearby natural areas would help to inoculate the soil'_
You'd need to be sure the logs don't contain the root killing fungus - Phytophthora. ----- Not everything in the soil or logs is friendly.
@@PaxAlotin-j6r That is a valuable point. It is best practice to not move plant and soil materials more than a short distance to avoid spreading pests and pathogens. Although Phytophthora are not fungi, there root pathogen fungi like Armillaria. In contrast, there are some fungi like Hypholoma that can protect trees with their colonies, which could be spread with a colonized log.
@@nathandale3415 Thanks for the updated information..
Back in the my day (1970's) Phytophthora was classed as a Fungus --
- but it appears that Cladistics changed its classification shortly afterwards.
I have a front garden food forest,that used to be just lawn.I employed what i learnt,about habitats and ecosystems,studying conservation and land management,in the 90s, to provide food for my family and the local wildlife. This concept is completely lost on my neighbours who have more traditional ideas about garden use.I explain to them about the benefits of eating fresh fruit n veg combined with biodiversity,but my words are lost on them.
Im happy to see ideas such as this spreading.
Wow, that sounds amazing! I'd love you to elaborate more on the topic! I wonder how did you do IT more specifically💖
I live in a rural area in Belgium. Most of my neighbours only have lawn. But some have vegetable gardens.
We've noticed that "lazy plant it all together" can work wonderfully or be a disaster. Some benefit from weeds/other plants around and others are smothered. It's a learning curve.
@@mffmoniz2948 That's interesting to hear.I have a constant battle with bindweed,other than that, it's just coping with overabundance and pruning.The apples are looking good this year and should produce great cider,fingers crossed.
I started a front garden, too, a few years ago. Little by little I keep taking away small areas of grass. My husband said, "I see what you're doing...I want my lawn." I'm hoping to win him over to edible landscaping and permaculture. I leave him a little token lawn. 😅
There is a valid research that says 'Mother trees' are key for survival in the conventional method. Basically, if you plant only pine trees, you need one big established pine-tree to rear them up. Because the same species can share nutrients and moisture. Therefore, the faster they connect, by root. The faster, they can help one another.
They also drown out other species. Each area is different. Fire is bad and doesn't sequester carbon so we have to use active management strategies. This is a great method to establish a forest but we can't apply that to maintaining or improving a forest. Selective logging is a vitally important tool to combat climate change and provide habitat. A great example is tree plantations. NOT GOOD.
As the plants grow it is important to do selective pruning. In this way we can move that carbon either into the soil or sequester it in our homes. We can be mother natures greatest ally. She can't make this planet livable for all of us on her own. She needs our help or she will bite back. Active management is necessary.
@@frictionhitch fire isn't necessarily bad, in many areas it's an important disturbance which stimulates plant growth. The grasslands and savannas of north america especially rely on these disturbances
While that very much applies to american pastures and savannah, it isn't true for most native English forests, in those cases fire disturbance just leads to the beginning of the end for the forest as grazing increases, and of course even in the us the fire has to be very controlled or it could cause a lot of damage@@dandelionappreciator9712
Makes sense. There are many bacteria and fungi that actively produce beneficial by-products when they feed off the roots of the strong trees, which could benefit weaker trees around it as well.
Another aspect that came to mind is water retention of the soil. The more sparse they are, the easier the water can leave the area. A more densely planted crop will retain more moisture in the air (trees lose water through transpiration), and reduce evaporation of water from the soil.
@@dandelionappreciator9712 There are zero forests left in America. Out of control fireis how you get the outback like in Australia. The Aborigines didn't know. WE DO!
Fire is lazy and it leads to poor results. The answers are way more complicated than that.
Many species properly managed.
You have to managing the soil all the wayto the canopy.
We want fire resistant forests before we start fires.
Clearing farmland and forests with fire have lead to deserts all around the word.
Again there is nothing natural left. We need active mechanical management.
We are smarter than just willy nilly fire. We have to be because our damaged ecosystems are not prepared to recover.
Awww, you have found my second favourite renaturing initiative in addition to Mossy Earth - Planet Wild. Really love to see you working together, too! 💚
Ohh, thanks for your kind words 💚
This is really, really interesting. Things are getting dire, fast. We need to be able to invest very scarce resources into high return projects like this.
For sure!! Tiny forests everywhere right now. Recovery can happen fast.
Ive recently seen how fast forest can grow when dormant seeds in the ground we activated, like in the recreational park where I live, just two years it’s similar to the sights in this video. Awesome
We need these rather than more housing ffs!
We could make better use of living spaces.
How is this a high return project???
I've been involved in many experimental projects such as this, and the #1 problem will be money, especially as you can't get a direct monetary return out of this.
11 hours - 136 comments . . .People have a natural need to see these things happening. Appreciated !
I had noticed that sewing seeds closer together than the seed packet recommended helped the plants grow better in our (US) southwest desert environment. I believe that it helped them to keep the humidity higher in a place where humidity is normally quite low.
Similar factors are at work in the Japanese technique. By having many layers of plant life of all different heights, they all help each other make maximum use of resources. Any water will stay in that area longer, and multiply the effect of any rainfall.
Creeping garden plants are this way as well, they help one another kill out weeds while retaining more nutrients, water, and sheltering against wind. Also an entire patch of flowering plants attracts a lot more pollinators because it is a very dense with food for those pollinators. Sometimes planting things very close together helps. Usually when you plant creeping varieties of plants, and succulents the very first thing you work is the soil (add compost and sand and potash)
For large scale reforestation projects, wouldn't it be advised to plant small high density patches in this method, leaving areas untouched in-between. In comparison to a homologous low density planting of trees(as done usually). I suppose as soon as these patches of high density reach sexual maturity they will start to spread outwards. This in turn leads to a forest with varying ages of trees, aiding the natural cycle of forest growth.
Thanks so much for spreading the word about Planet Wild! Can't believe I did not know them before - some of their projects are just mind-blowing. Became their supporter after watching a few videos.
I didn't know them either. So happy that I found them through you, Rob! Big fan already
Yeah they're doing solid work!
This specific method/name is new to me but my experience is that high density planting often produces better results, although it ultimately negatively impacts production in a temperate food forest. In fact I'm about to do some selective thinning in one area to open up the canopy and increase light levels. At the same time I'm increasing density in another part of the site. Thanks for the video.
You sound like you have no idea what you are doing.
@@BryceGarling What a nasty comment.
@@BryceGarlingno they're correct. Denser plantings aren't always better as it can restrict light to the lower levels. Density can be good but it depends on what you're planting. An oak or walnut may want more space to spread its crown for example. Thinning is a pretty common practice for the long term health of a stand.
Sounds like it's a win-win though. @@TheWoodlandOrchardwith your thinning, are you able to replant the plants that you have removed?
Most forests, even in prehistoric times, were naturally thinned out by wildlife grazing creating clearings and pathways through the denser foliage allowing for sunlight to reach lower levels and greater biodiversity. Further, natural storms and forest fires often would clear new areas for growth. So a natural forest would end up being a patchwork of slightly denser growth interspaced with less denser areas and clearings, with old trees lying around on the forest floor decomposing adding to the various species of forest flora and fauna-and eventually soil health.
I volunteer with Trees for Cities, and on planting days, we either do standards (trees that are a few years old, most at least 2m tall) or bare-root whips (saplings, normally about 1 foot). When we do standards, depending on the number of volunteers, we can plant a dozen or so trees. A team of 5 volunteers can plant maybe 2 trees in a day. When we are doing the whips, in a Mikawaki influenced method*, we can end up planting hundreds or thousands. Each volunteer can individually plant maybe 30 trees. The sites look amazing a few years down the line. I always prefer the whips days vs the standards days.
*It is a bit of a simplification or compromise due to restrains on time, budget and the work being carried out mostly by non-experts.
Dr Miyawaki has been doing this type of planting for years. It involves working from the ground up - soil first then plants. It’s amazing what he has accomplished.
New industries should be mandated to grow these next to their infrastructure.
This was literally where the idea came from. Japan required new factories to plant some amount of forest on the land, and Miyawaki created the method to suit this need.
Conservatives will call that oppressive government overreach, then wonder why they live in a concrete hellscape when the corporations are unregulated.
That feels like a good idea and then if you give your head a shake and think you realize ideas like this are why industry is moving to China.
@@micahwest5347 Not really; industry is moving to China (and, by now, to yet other countries) because wages are lower and labour exploitation is easier to get away with.
@@micahwest5347 Lack of automation in the UK and ineficient logistics are the reasons why we are uncompetitive.
Leave Curious, Mossy Earth and Planet Wild all great channels with great retainers.
👍
This misses a lot of nuance which admittedly is really hard to get across on TH-cam. The facts as far as I'm aware though is that this is not the best or most economical way to create high quality woodland. In fact just because a tree grows fast doesn't mean it's healthy. The reality is these trees planted densely together are in fierce competition with eachother and to create good quality woodland with structural diversity significant thinning will have to occur. Arguably it's okay for smaller plots, shelterbelts etc. but this is not a suitable solution to our nature crisis by any means, it's an expensive quick fix to creating an urban green space over a better but slower method.
I should add that the real crux of my point here is the objective of planting and quality of the end habitat. If the goal is actual woodland this doesn't work out cheaper or better as shrub/faster growing species win out over the slower growing ones e.g. oak and you end up with a dense scrub if you don't thin and a poor not very structurally diverse woodland if you do thin.
I did a reforestation project on our property. You always start with planting the trees densely and the thining out comes later. Fast growing trees are especially good for large surfaces otherwise scrub (thorns and bushes) will outgrow the saplings fast and rob the light so they die. Of course you can start with bigger trees but in our case we planted only a few and looked what would grow where naturally as nature knows best. But we had to cut back the scrub at least twice a year to prevent them to overgrow the little trees otherwise the project would have taken even longer, as only a few trees would have survived the darkness. Birches are pretty good as a starter they grow fast, don’t get super old and let a lot of light come through their leaves, perfect for protecting little trees like oak and walnut- we did not even have to plant them, luckily.
Our project started roughly ten years ago and has already 3-8m high trees like oak, walnut, chestnut, beeches, birches, Douglas fir, hazelnut and wild cherry trees to name a few. There are so many birds, boars and deer in there, it is lovely.
Also the whole comparison is flawed, because various methods are heavily contextual. Planting individual trees with good spacing between them is absolutely nowhere near the same amount of effort and resources compared to analysing the soil, turning it, adding compost and supplements, planting 10 times as many trees and more. Obviously it has its place, but imagine the amount of resources you'd need to get the great green wall working in China. It's utterly absurd.
@@maudbrewster9413the fact is that if we as humans are going to recreate a forest for whatever reason… we’ll have to come in and copies back …. Is it easier to control scrub or trees? And this idea that it’s more expensive … maybe but maybe not… depends on what’s available and the planters knowledge… it’s good to know all the methods so one can make decisions on which method to apply… in other planting objectives, like a potager, I personally like to use counter or table height beds for lettuces, herbs, zuchinni et al… but, lots of other stuff in the ground too… then there’s all kinds of other factors… I just always look for opportunities to establish a ‘low input’ area (permaculture), but, it takes time… and there just is no one size fits all… people need to know how stuff grows in their climates and microclimates… esp if recreating a forest…. I plan to use a corner of my property (a quarter acre of my property) to create a forest but I know very little about my area …. I’m out of my lifelong California coast and desert… in high altitude forest w pine …. I was orig planning on adding more piñon… but, I’m not sure how well that will go since I just heard that they are super
I'm not here to argue which methods works better. But I'm here to point out...that whoever started the act first, the one that acted to have a change to help nature is far better than the one with just words on his or her mouth.....
People are just murmuring, but their words are never been put into action....
I know someone from Finland, their family doesn't know anything about planting trees but they started to plant trees in those 10 acres of Barren Land. Yes, some died some survive....they learn from it. Then continues, and now that land is almost forested.
The Miyawaki method also encourages a favourable microclimate for young plants it seems - providing more shade, more wind shelter and more moisture in the soil because of that
I read somewhere, decades ago, that one should leave a "corner" of one's land "wild" or all naturally grown trees, shrubs and vegetation (to encourage natural insects etc. Of course, this works fine if there is sufficient room, but even a small plot should be encouraged, apparently). This method reminds me of this.
We have this too in the Netherlands. It's pretty cool!
Some Indian researchers came to a similar conclusion and held a TED talk about it... Similarly, there's a talk on how to make the desert green again. I believe that one was by some Israeli researchers. Also, there are multiple talks about fungi and what they can do (really impressive).
From a practical perspective (considering so-called food forests), there are a few additional things to consider:
1) Nature doesn't grow all plants at the same time, or rather there are phases where different plants thrive. For instance, vines need large trees to thrive, bananas and tomatoes need windbreaks, and banana trees need the leaves of larger trees to gain enough nutrients... Shade, soil- and water retention also play pivotal roles. This is where pioneer plants may come in. They need less nutrients and can handle harsher environments. Once the soil doesn't get blown or washed away, shrubs and small trees pump water up and share it with plants that can't reach as deep.
2) To mimic this, you need to be conscious about which plants can grow fast without support. Then, you can cut down some plants to make space for more sensitive plants that require shade and the established root network... Unlike regular forests, you can chop up the undesired plants and let them rot in place.
3) In the case of a food forest, you need paths through it to harvest your crop. It is tempting to align these paths with the path of the sun, but wind funneling can be pretty bad. The same goes for water runoff on slopes... The overcrowding effect may be beneficial at the beginning, but in the long term, it does hurt plants. Especially when you have multiple plants of the same family in proximity, you want to remove the weakest so that pests don't take over. The remaining plants can take up the space rather quickly.
4) You can't just constantly take from your food forest without returning something. Most crops are greedy. Therefore they must be diluted with other plants that fix nitrogen or provide biomass (leaves, needles...).
5) You either cover the ground with wood chips, or some ground cover plant, or weeds will take over. Once trees are tall enough, they'll make their own ground cover, and ground cover plants will receline to a few spots.
I was wondering how you would balance this approach with production as the plants mature, so this is a really insightful comment! Thanks for sharing!
But these are not good forests.
These are rapid start forests with lots of local plants.
Some research into these forests in Ireland has shown that it is unnecessary to turn over the soil, but laying a thick mulch over your land, does at least as well. I have never seen long term results for this method. What does it look like in 20...40 years. I have about 10 acres, which I plan to rewild, but it's so hard to know how to start. There is a selfish bit of me wanting it to look 'nice' and allow me access, but I'm kinda missing the point with that thinking.
With that much land you could have a variety of uses. You could have a veg garden, fruit/forest garden, fertility patches and/or grassland for feeding biomass to the above, some livestock and even plant trees for firewood/fencing/growing mushrooms/timber and other products. Then just all the bits you don't get around to doing anything with will start to rewild by themselves 😆 to be fair the human uses don't have to exclude wildlife either (although livestock and veges do perhaps more than the others).
To fully rewild somewhere you don't need to do anything apart from keep neighbouring livestock off the land - sheep in particular are the enemy of trees and I reckon some farmers will 'accidentally' knock down walls if they see a bit of land they think isn't being used for some free extra grazing. I had a field in Lancashire a few years ago and the first thing we had to do was drive a load of sheep off it and rebuild the dry stone wall where they'd been getting in
First step: do nothing with the land. Second step: introduce various trees and other plants over time.
Oh I think there’s definitely room for that! (The nice looking, accessible part.) And I don’t think it’s selfish at all. When rewilding, it does take a season or 3 to look nice, but that’s true of spaced out planting too- plants always need time to settle in, fill out, and make their best shape. In terms of access, small, permeable paths are good for a variety of reasons, like airflow and access for larger wildlife. Where I live in Central Oregon, the deer are basically just big squirrels, in that we coexist super casually with them. If we don’t put paths through our new landscape, they will make their own, and stomp on things we don’t want stomped. On our property, we did our best to plant some sacrificial plants along the paths that deer like to eat, with a layer of deer-resistant plants behind them, to keep them from exploring into the new plantings. It has worked pretty well. Anyway, if you don’t know where to start, there are plenty of people and organizations who will give you a native species cheat sheet, and you can just pick 2 or three of each layer (tree, shrub, ground) and put those in. Your land is lucky to have you 💚
The original myawaki forest around the campus of his universiteit in Japan is about 40 years old and an absolute jungle, I mean that in a good way! If you search it on youtube or Google you will find it 👍
I was unaware of this method when I began my tree planting on 3 acres here in the west of Ireland! I simply followed my intuition and planted densely as well as mulching. The results are phenomenal after 20 years I have documented this on several social media platforms and also written, a book all about it.
Love it. It's surprisingly what you focus on when you don't have much space, but still want the benefits. And then, how it can be applied to other settings.
Hype and fashion only.
They have built one 2 years ago in my local park. The cost was easily > £ 10k. Just 20 yards away is a 10x larger woodland, and grass and young trees around it, that spontaneously want to grow are cut each year. Bla bla about "CO2 neutral", but they had to cut trees to make the fence, a lot of transport costs etc.
Instead, they could just stop cutting grass (and bushes and trees) that want to grow in that place without any human help.
Those organisations talk myths and lies, but I found only one weak scientific paper on the topic (from Europe, I think Sardinia), and it did NOT show any obvious advantages. Mind, that initial density is around 25 000 trees per hectare plus 10 inch layer of woodchips, soil improvers, fencing and whatnot.
From my research - it's a hype (and scam) by some non-profit organizations, at least in Europe. Maybe in South/East Asia they have plants and climate more suitable for this method.
@@hotbit7327 You keep pushing lies with one single anecdote and literally ignoring there are literal research papers showing you are wrong. Anecdotes about a TWO YEAR program is not nearly what you think it is.
@@WmJared Please point me to those "literal research papers". I only know one from Sardinia, which provides some insights but also has several limitations.
I'm happy to learn and change my views.
@@WmJared As for the "lies", I might've been wrong, but did not intentionally lie. Please correct where I was wrong. Thank you.
@@hotbit7327 I literally responded with four articles in another comment, but YOU are the one making false and harmful claims without doing the barest HINT of research. YOU are the one doing harm, and you utterly failed to google a goddamn thing before YOU SAID WITH YOUR CHEST NOT A SINGLE RESEARCH ARTICLE BACKS THEIR BENEFITS, when the fucking overall survey of ALL Miyawaki research literally dropped in fucking February you reactionary liar.
"This paper performed a bibliographic review to provide a comprehensive overview of relevant research regarding the Miyawaki method and the benefits over the traditional reforestation techniques, identifying gaps in the literature that could inform future research and implementation. The 27 articles found were divided into 5 thematic categories: (1) plantation method, (2) technical results (plant growth, survival rates, and soil conditions), (3) mitigatory effects (climate change, natural disasters, and urban heat island), (4) social aspect, and (5) other. The results indicate that there are significant benefits of the method over the traditional approach, primarily better and faster growth. The method also presents additional benefits such as social cohesion and natural disaster mitigation. The main limitations that were identified include investment cost, survival rate, and genetic diversity. "
What a great idea! Your enthusiasm makes your videos really a pleasure to watch!
👍
First and foremost: What a wonderful method. I hope to see much more of this in the future.
I’d love to see a version with minimal artificial soil disturbance. Based on our knowledge of mycorrhizal fungi, I’m concerned turning over the soil and then inoculating with outside species may be doing more harm than good. Based on my observation of land that has been compacted, I think it might be better to leave the soil the right way up and mostly undisturbed with just a few patches of disturbed soil mimicking the action of boar and moles. Extra worms could be introduced into the disturbed patches and they can probably be trusted to introduce mycorrhizal fungi more effectively than we can. I’d dump a massive amount of compost on top to give the worms something to draw down into the compacted soil, creating burrows and taking oxygen with them.
It would take more effort and cost more, but for absolutely maximising the health of the micro forest, I’d also direct sow as much as I could, or transplant as very young seedlings before the roots have reached the sides of the pots.
Fascinating!
Well particularly in this case, the mycorrhiza layer may have either been missing or completely unsuitable. The species that will be interfacing with turf grasses in a compacted athletics field would be completely different than those colonizing shrubs and trees, if they hadn't been killed from whatever chemical practices were used to maintain the turf. Tilling was likely necessary and, given the types of people who would invest in a project like this, not performed willy nilly.
All due respect, but isn't that the sort of micro-managing opposite of the method described here ?
As someone from Tennessee, that’s just what happens to fields when you stop cutting them, I’ve regrown like 5 acres.
This gives me so many ideas for what could be done locally, imagine every roundabout and road side with this, we could increase biodiversity all across the country. If politicians knew about this they could be hailed as making their area truly lush and green with minimal expense.
Nice to see this Video. My Wife worked for an organisation wich provided these tiny forest to any community of city in the Netherlands. They even made a variant voor a small lot, 6 m2 for example. This is called a Tuiny forest (Tuin stands for garden) and we planted one ourself in our small front lawn. The growth of the trees and plants are exeptional!
This looks like the sort of habitat suitable for nightingales too.
And turtledoves, both species are endangered because of loss of habitat.
Now I understand the Miyawaki method much better, thank you.
I get the feeling the algorithm has seen my back yard. Due to health problems, volunteer trees have filled my back yard--you can't walk through it, it's so dense. Not going to leave them, but it's going to take an immense effort to cut down, and I'm disabled. Seriously, my back yard is just as dense as what you're showing us.
Just leave it😊 maybe carve a path so you can enjoy it
I think sometimes we have to let go of what society has taught us is the norm. Don't feel ashamed that your yard looks different from your neighbors
👍
@@danielportillo2443 yes if you cut a path people will know you deliberately left the rest
I've been gardening organically for years, but treated it as "no chemicals", rather than "maximising biology".. Recently we went "no-dig" and this year trying my hand at compost teas for the first time and beginning to see real positive changes.. we have a boundary where this principle of overplanting with the full range of native local plants would be excellent to create a shelter belt. I followed one of the links and there they are essentially saying organic rich soil, aerated, mulched, compost teas etc, everything we've been working towards in the last couple of years. Biodiversity begins with the soil.. but the soil is a complex living environment that lives in conjunction with a complex living environment above ground. It's wonderful to see just how much difference you get when you apply all these ideas together alongside the older way of doing things.
I know that you fixed it on the post, 1 tree per square kilometer cracked me up 😂
That was a great video, you got yourself a new subscriber 😊
It's taking monoculture to a whole new level 😂
I know absolutely sod all about plants and gardening etc. and no idea why this was recommended but I see this and I just immediately thought this would be pretty much perfect for a golf course. There’s a ton of space that they will carve the course around and they could plant so much dense forest like this around the course
If you ever fancy teyimg this out up in Angus, east Scotland we have a large community garden that is changing the way people think about growing food and living with nature, feel free to get in touch 🌱😉
This is exactly what I have been doing on my own little property here on the Atlantic coast of Canada. Where I planted, I planted densely, but I’ve also just allowed native species to come up on their own. The results have been astounding and it’s only been three years.
Some cities in India are planting plots of Miyawaki forest in an attempt to reduce the temperature, with some success. Several videos on Utube.
I noticed a lot of comments seem to downplay the importance and study of this planting method but I think this video does do a great job at introducing the topic in a way that is easily digestible and encourages further research. I've seen plenty of articles and videos that reference practices utilizing natural phenomena to encourage more efficient and sustainable plant growth without ever touching on important concepts that encourage further research by the viewer such as mycorrhizal fungi and the importance of biodiversity and layering of different species of plants.
It's videos like this that encouraged me and many others to pursue an education in environmental sciences.
Great video all around! Good job!
Love to see the technique but it seems like there are multiple variables between the control & experimental groups. The dirt was tilled, the plants had more diversity, and were closer together. All the grass growing in the control group is stunting the trees. I'd love to see a control group with tilled dirt next.
Yes exactly. I'd like to see this done too, if it had more attention/prep they'd definitely grow faster.
This works like this because the roots release nutrients into the soil and the other plants pick them up and use them and the process just repeats. Different species release different nutrients. When the plants on the bottom die it fertilizes the soil with something called necromass and that’s why it’s self staining after a short period of time
Didn't know about this method but it seems so obviously the right one!
This is the first time I have heard this called the Miyazaki Method. I studied "Do nothing growing" by Masanobu Fukuoka in '83. His veggie gardens were so "overgrown" it was hard to find the fruits. But very little maintenance was required, with great success. Why? He taught to study nature, observe, learn, and "on principle" do nothing" to obstruct it.
Does nature plow? No? Then don't disturb the layers. Too compacted? Plant something used to growing in hard ground, then follow with your mixed crops. He didn't grow rice under water, yet had the highest yields of healthier rice. He developed direct seed planting in deserts, by coating, broadcasting before a rain.
Planet Wild: check! Also Mossy Earth are still doing great stuff.
Makes a solid wind break. That saves soil and large trees from gusts
I created a tiny forest using the Miyawaki method in Chile with Mediterranean forest species, and it really works. It’s been 2 years now. I used drip irrigation during the first summer
This sounds like a great concept! I went to a talk last year (in Kent) where we were educated about how long horn cattle can shape the fields and forests just by doing what they're normally doing. Turning over soil with their hoofs, eating leaves etc, taking off branches and even felling trees if it gets too dense, it was really fascinating. And the cows were just chilling in the field behind us. I'm so glad that good things are happening in Kent, we really need a better approach to nature over here xD
I'm interested in what will they be like in 30 years, due to the closeness of the planting? Will these mini forests have a bonsai effect and trees grow smaller than if they were planted with normal spacing? Or due to the density will some of the trees outcompete other ones over the years, so you end up with just a few big trees on the site? I have watched and read quite a bit about these mini forests but I have never seen or read any mention of what the temperate mini forests will end up being like.
@@njpringle on the long run, self-thinning due to the lack of sunlight will kill most of the plants, leaving a few standing adult trees with a shade tolerant understory, which is why this is such a waste of resources
Ive accidentally done this to my driveway garden. The birds created an oasis in 4 years. Theres now like 5 species of trees and several bushing and some ground crawling species very dense in an area about 8 x 10 foot area. (sorry i never learned metric)
I can see in my garden where i got overzealous at the nursery buying new things. There are areas just crammed. But those are the areas that grow best.
In my shade garden, especially, where there are short , delicate ferns on the bottom layer, and in the summer they are safely shaded by large hostas and heuchera, it's a wall of greens and white and purple.
Other areas are crammed similarly.
However, the Hydrangeas i gave lots of room to grow, and THOSE are still tiny (relative to how big they should be by now).
I've been suspecting that putting some little plants close and under them might help.
It's a permaculture tree guild, no?
Edit: So a densely packed tree guild, making sure to turn the ground first. Cool
not just turn the ground.. in the links they make the point they are using compost teas which can add a lot of life if done correctly. This is an essential element. Turn gound to add air, add elements to soil if major parts are missing (not chemicals, rather humus etc) add fungi, prototzoa, nematodes etc through compost teas. Full spectrum bio diversity below ground.
Funny I just thought the opposite. Though there are common elements of mixing species and taking the layers of the forest into account, and the result look somewhat similar.
The fertilizing, removing the grass that was there, turning, make it definitely not permaculture. Permaculture also focuses on edible plants, Miyawaki is only about afforestation.
Yknow permaculture is a bunch of appropriated ideas repackaged /renamed and sold as the dream in the form of books and courses?
If you mimic what nature does, everything thrives. Balance is achieved.
I think it goes without saying that injecting high levels of plant diversity into an otherwise deprived area, yields more biodiversity than throwing some trees in a grassy field. Seems a bit of a skewed comparison to me. If the sparser tree planting was done in conjunction with the reintroduction of grassland herbaceous species, I think biodiversity comparisons would even out a lot more.
Yeah a lot of this seems like, well obviously, but the thing is, is that we haven’t changed the way we planet trees, when this method clearly works to establish them very quickly.
@@LeaveCuriousthat's a very fair point, I can definitely agree with you on that.
I wish there was a well developed method for reproducing prairies, although an understanding of plant succession, soils, and hydrology might make that more possible.
I think the only way we could prove this one way or the other is by a large, controlled experiment. The Miyawaki method is changing several things at once: species number, matching to soil, soil preparation, planting density ... four independent variables already. We really don't know which is the most important.
We now have a new Miyawaki forest in the allotment adjacent to our plot. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
Thanks Rob, The Kobayashi Maru method deserves to be better known.
I don’t believe in no plant scenarios.
Saying it's cheaper seems a bit dubious when you're using both more labour, soil amendments and plants than in the other method, whilst any of those can be free they're all still resources - I'd say that's one of the advantages of simple tree planting where you stick in a spade to open a slit and then shove a whip in - it's very quick and easy to do whereas taking the turf off/digging a big area and incorporating amendments is a lot of work and as hard as prepping ground for growing vegetables. I'm sure it produces better results but of course using more time and resources will tend to do that.
I did a load of fruit trees and bushes this year and for those it's definitely worth digging and amending the soil but fruit plants are a lot fussier than native non-cultivated species and also the grafted whips can be as much as £30 each so you want to try and give them the best possible chance
You can certainly get quick results planting quick growing trees into appropriate soil with wider spacings and no digging - I planted a load of willow on the edge of some drainage ditches in Ireland a few years ago and they got over head height in the first year but then we also had a load of sweet chestnut struggle as the conditions weren't really right.
I reckon this method probably helps with drought and also to protect the trees by quickly establishing a zone that's hard for people to get into - also removing mowing from the equation means less trees being killed by equipment which tbf probably helps a lot - I live in leeds now and some of the tree planting here has had very low sucsss rates (probably only about 5% in places) and i reckon a lot of that is because the trees have been mown down because the people who planted them haven't been the people who've done the follow on work. Probably mowing the grass is half the problem anyway - I remember hearing a talk by the guy from the agroforestry research trust where he was saying the most energy efficient/greenest (not necessarily quickest) way of establishing woodland is to just stop mowing completely and let natural succession happen
Only preparing the soil vs not preparing a compacted impoverished soil should make 90% of the difference.
In think his point about planting a good mix of soil-appropriate trees is important as well. My take-home from this is that no one single factor is key, otherwise everyone would be doing it.
@@anotherfreediver3639 - Maybe but you have to test it and I got from the video that the main difference was that in the bad side the soil was compacted and in the good side the soil had been heavily worked and prepared.
I agree, they needed a third section where they prepared the soil and then planted in more sparsely.
We're rewilding our 1 1/2 acre property in East Tennessee with a native Smoky Mountain forest. This method has inspired me to make my plantings closer together and include a lot more ground level plants between the trees and shrubs.
Is there a rivalry between Mossy Earth and Planet Wild or is it all chill?
Never, rewilding is only possible if we do it together
@@LeaveCurious good to know 🙌🏻
@@LeaveCurious Plus research shows that doing shared events with donor overlap and sharing information about funds and projects increases donations to both orgs as well as project efficacy. I haven't seen anything about it increasing community engagement, but it may lend to that as well.
@LeaveCurious there's enough curious love to go around? Hope there's enough projects for you to be involved with both
A bit silly to call that a test. Do it here in Finland to a couple of square km:s. I just think you do not realize that when you reforest a cut down, it will always look like that Japanese jungle in a few years even you just plant pine or spruce with decent spacing as the seeds are already in the ground for other stuff.
Miyawaki forests are extremely expensive. The ground preparations and the ridiculous amount plants it requires makes it a very impractical method of ecological restoration. This can only work at very small scales as an urban luxury garden.
Also, there is no scientific evidence to back the 99% survival rates you claim. Due to Miyawaki's high density, auto thinning should take place in the short run and survival rates should be very low at 5 years. Finally, you can't say that is "cheaper" just because of survival rates. It is a completely different thing to have an X survival rate of 2.000 plants per hectare than 2.000 plants on a small 500 m2 lot.
@@RestauremosNaturaleza There are studies. its called the Miyawaki method. they did the whole study in 1988. youd find more information on it if you didnt take your view off of one video and instead researched the actual research
@@RestauremosNaturaleza This method is used in natural habitats where the soil of the land goes with the lands native plants. It was never about reestablishing soil in an area that is poor of soil. they avoid poor soiled areas in the study. Maybe go read
Fascinating. I live in the North London Borough of Enfield. The local authority have been trying to provide more trees in some of our local Parks. Trees are normally planted in a row with a plastic housing and a stake in order to keep the planting safe from being eaten or vandalised. As a dog walker I have been able to keep an eye on the progress of the young trees. Generally the progress is very slow. By comparison our local Park stopped the grass cutting of one particular area of the Park. In fact it was ignored. The area is now thick with young trees. No plastic was used. No staking. Yet the whole area is thriving. I hope the Japanese method is adopted by more people.
Enfield : "Top" London Borough!
This is literally permaculture
Yeah we have alot to learn from permaculture
There are elements of permaculture, but it is not permaculture. It is more syntropic forestry with focus on native vegetation. What'd he say PNV? Potential natural vegetation.
Permaculture has a lot of drawbacks, being it is for production using exotic plants that often become dominant monocultures when humans leave or plants escape. Massive damage has been done in Australia from permaculture escapees rendering vast plots of land in a perpetual non-successional state.
@@Uenaeons my understanding is this Japanese system is purely about the layers. That is only one aspect of permaculture. Permaculture prioritises diversity and food production which makes it more sustainable than this system. Food producing trees are more likely to survive many generations of humans. I would like to see specific examples of what you claim happened in Australia
No. This is only 1 aspect of permaculture
@@ptah23
Check out Florida permaculturists. Most push using Yellow Mexican Sunflowers to chop up and use as mulch.
Yellow Mexican Sunflowers are one of the worst invasives here in Florida.
Generally only experience, permaculturalists really need to work with native plant people. And I’m not even a native plant absolutist.
Also, while fruit trees are great, you still need to plant native trees that our native bees, butterflies & birds use.
Welp. I finally got around to watching this... and about an hour later I've become a member at Planet Wild & have updated my LinkedIn to now officially be a Nature Investor! 😄🌿
No idea what happened between you and @mossyearth but know advertising a direct copy seems odd somehow.
They both share the same mission. Rewilding planet Earth. I don't see why he can't be supporting both at the same time.
Well said.
I’m full time leave curious now which advocates nature restoration in all ways
I did something similar to this but better, I built a mostly edible perrenial garden and everything is HUGE!
Lovely ...indeed let's restore our beautiful planet....greetings from subtropical Australia where I am growing a food forest...
I really like your focus on the UK. You cover topics and projects most channels like yours overlook
Collective rewilding 🙌 letting our roots grow deep. Thank you!
I love this. I’m making my own little meadows in the backyard and the insect variety and bird variety are just incredible❤ 😊
At last! A video that considers the different levels of a forest. We've been so bust planting trees and thinking we are reforestering the world. No. We're just planting trees. Not that this is a terrible thing but it is very blinkered. I have a large garden and i live by the side of a forest and i let it grow as wild as i can. The amount of species that have arrived in the last 8 years is incredible.
Years ago, i created a video called Green Deserts, channel Taoist poetry. I don't have access to that channel but it shows you the difference between a wild garden and a field. It talks about Masanobo Fukuoka's natural farming.
Also, the different plant heights mean that they deplete and nourish the earth at different levels which is better for the soil.
4 tier canopy to ground layers have featured in Forestry commission literature for decades.
Planting at regular intervals allows for predictable harvesting of tree crop. Nurse trees have been used/placed to add density and competition for growth for many years.
Objectives in Planting informs the adopted technique.
Those Japanese forests looked amazing
That looks like my garden! I have almost too many trees now, and the local wildlife seems to be enjoying it. The neighbours, not so much.
I planted my front yard like this using native shrubs (Western Oregon). Eight years later, it's an impenetrable brush of currents, spirea and thimbleberry with one Viburnum.
This is so great for quick impact planting which adds huge benefits to the ecosystem
, I'm intrigued however that in time as these trees grow, and competition becomes too great for some and the shade becomes very intense for ground cover plants, what happens then ? Another thing I've covered in horticultural corses is that density can lead to a lack of air flow and increase the likely hood and impact of disease?
Is the idea to max out with planting so as the forest grows the loss of some trees is natural and just adds to the cycle of decay and nutrients release or is the idea to keep the forest as a mini forest covering a small patch of land and if so what are the maintenance requirements to keep this size ?
When looking at gardens that were built using the conventional way, and then look at gardens where natural processes were given priorities or look at natural woodlands, the end result always stands out: A conventional garden which was made without planning ahead always becomes an eyesore, while in nature everything grows without following a designer's plan and yet everything balances out so well with everything else, and the result is always appealing.
That test plot should have a 3rd zone: traditional planting with amended soil. May need to be amended differently for the sparser planting.
Nature has its own order
If you do this is small patches it is essentially a forest edge type environment, means a fair bit of light for a lot of the plants and a forest edge is the most active / biodiverse part of a forest anyway. Planting farther apart is a more savanah or silvopasture type environment, also valuable, but a very different one. Silvopasture is more inviting for grazers (although if that is livestock you want to protect the young trees).
This is so fascinating. I've never wanted to plant a forest so badly.
Susan Simards book Finding the Mother Tree is a wonderful testament to the benefit of diversity in forests
The dense packing will also help keep the wind out, which you wouldn't think would be a big issue, but lots of wind can cause a plant to grow short and squat, to better withstand it
Amazing. It would be good to see what management is needed in this method for the future such as thinning, coppicing and leaving standards. Cheers J
It's funny, I was talking about this just the other day and now it pops up in my recommendations. My wife and I were discussing how beautiful certain parts of Asia are with their cherry trees that seem like they have just always been there. Some form of this technique seems to have always existed throughout parts of Asia, likely stemming from a common source. Comparing cultivated land (fruit trees etc) in Korea and Japan to Europe is night and day visually. When looking to restore nature, look to nature for the means, it seems like a no brainer but so few seem to do it.
This is a great achievable idea in relatively small spaces
Let’s hope we see more of it 👍
It makes sense. I love tulip trees and planted quite a few. For those who don't know tulip trees (Liriodendron Tulipifera) grow very fast (approximately 6 feet/year). The soil where I've planted them is the same. The ones planted alone with plenty of space barely put any height on. The ones with competition near by put on around the max amount of feet each year. I thought it was due to the competition itself. Kind of like a race. They take their sweet time if they have a massive lead, but if someone else is closing in they kick into high gear. I didn't really consider symbiotic relationships aside from nitrogen fixing and mycorrhizal fungi. It's probably a combo of all of those things though. It's truly wild how balanced nature is. All of these factors and maybe more we don't consider make a huge difference. The world is so intricate and amazing.
Great to see! Although I don’t agree that there is a ‘conventional’ method of tree planting, there’s loads of different ways tree are planted across GB. High density planting of mixed species is very similar to the Japanese method described here and can be seen across a fair few places in the UK!
Sounds great, but I wonder how the shrubs & flowers that grow on lower levels get enough light to survive. 🤔 Especially after a few years. Any thoughts to help me out?
if they dont get light there wont be many at all. using this method you'd need to plant herbs, shrubs, and flowers on the outer side surrounding the forest
Starts at 4:25
Really interesting love these kind of stories
There's also the science that trees communicate and support each other through the help of fungi. So planting them close together helps that network.
Mean 4 layer dense
1 tall tree
2 medium plant (bush or flower)
3 composer plant (fungi moss dll)
4 soil microorganism and porus
It would be interesting to see the control area getting the same soil prep treatment to see if it is the density of the planting that makes it grow so much better.
This is how the Indigenous folk of Turtle Island created a network of generations old, continent-wide food/medicine forests that the settlers thought of as an "Eden blessed by god"....they _paid attention_ to how nature thrives best, and then chose to work _with_ it....not against it 🖖🏾✨
There is a scientific experiment led by INSA in Toulouse that shows the differences using different planting method
This kind of forest is 4 meters height after 3 year
The other forests with trees spaced are only 2 meters