What are tha advantages and dis advantages of reforestation?

Answer 1

The only disadvantage of reforestation is that someone's land might be taken away. Reforestation is land that had tree and is now being used to grow more trees.

Answer 2

Advantages

• Decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (when trees are cut down they release CO2)
• More habitats for all kinds of species of animal
• We chopped down so many trees a year, we need to replace it as much as we can.

Disadvantages

• Very time consuming
• Expensive
• The damage may already have been done

Answer 3

Although deforestation can be good, it can also be irreparably harmful.

Causes of deforestationDeforestation happens naturally from time to time through wildfires. Trees, plants, and animals all recover from such events naturally; in fact some benefit from a fire. Birds such as the black-backed woodpecker thrive only in freshly burned areas where they eat insects that bore into the burned trees. Some trees such as the lodgepole pine produce serrotonous cones. These are cones that are fused shut and only open when a wildfire cooks the cone, thereby spreading the seeds into a freshly burned area with little other competition. Over time, burned areas regrow into forests. For an example, a visit to Yellowstone National Park today reveals a forest that is 20 years old (major fires burned much of the park in 1988) and filled with medium-height lodgepole pines.

People can also be a cause of deforestation for a number of reasons. The action is not always permanent; some countries are better at replanting forests than others.

Trees can be converted into paper or wood; two products that human civilization uses daily. But to be able to use it we need to retrive the wood in the first place, this is where forestry and logging comes in.

However, trees may be cut down for forest management reasons, also. One reason is to limit a wildfire's ability to spread. This may be done in an emergency to combat an active fire or in a methodically planned long-term harvest. Typically, the forest is allowed to recover and it does in a period of decades.

Certain types of wildlife benefit from recovering forests after harvest or wildfire. Many animals benefit from edge habitat created by responsible logging or smaller-scale fires.

The TradeoffPlants and animals in the natural world typically benefit from one type of habitat or another, or else benefit from living along the boundaries between two habitat types. Animals that are specifically adapted to live in the forest cannot usually survive if their habitat is taken away. However, deforestation may benefit certain other animals, particularly grazing animals. It is for this reason that humans clear forests such as the Amazon for cattle grazing.

Many birds benefit from having two habitats next to each other; the forest provides security but little food while the open field provides food but relatively little security. Living along the boundary allows these types of animals to benefit from the strengths of both habitats. Deer are another example of an animal that may benefit from an "edge" habitat.

Similarly, plants have differing sunlight and moisture requirements. In general, forest plants have broad leaves to catch what little sunlight falls on the forest floor, but those big leaves have a larger moisture requirement. Plants that live in the open have an abundance of sunlight and consequently little moisture; grass, for example. Take away the trees, and the plants that lived in the forest get cooked by the abundance of sunlight and die.

Another AnswerAs the previous contributor said, deforestation can be good. Particularly if the forest in question is unmanaged. You see, though all plants consume carbon dioxide, some consume more than others. Young, rapidly-growing plants consume much more carbon dioxide, on a per acre basis, than mature trees. Moreover, in an unmanaged forest, net carbon dioxide consumption is actually zero. This is because when trees die, they rot, and in doing so release all of the carbon stored over their lives, to combine with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide. In a mature, unmanaged forest, the carbon dioxide released by dying trees balances that being consumed by living trees and the net is zero. To some extent, trees can store carbon in the soil beneath them, slightly lowering the amount that is released into the atmosphere when they die. However, in rain forests in particular, the soils are very thin and cannot contain much carbon at all. Also, the Amazon Rain Forest is home to about half of all insects in the world and insects produce more carbon dioxide just by breathing than all human activities including fossil fuel burning.

If the Amazon Rain Forest were harvested (not burned, just cut), replanted with a fast-growing species of tree (say, pine), and managed carefully (including regular harvesting) to maximize carbon dioxide consumption and sequestration, we would be much better off in terms of carbon dioxide consumption. When the trees (both the initial rain forest trees and the replacement pine trees) are cut they would be converted to lumber or simply treated to prevent rotting thereby making them very efficient long-term carbon storage devices and keeping billions of tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. I've done the calculations and with the combination of higher carbon dioxide consumption by plants and lower carbon dioxide production by insects (they would die when they lose their habitat), we would need to cut only about 1/6 of the Amazon Rain Forest to completely offset all human-industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

One more note. Burning the forest is not a good idea. Burning immediately releases carbon into the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide, as opposed to the gradual process that occurs when the trees die and rot.

The official view and alertThe World Meteorological Organization and other official centers such as the KNMI in Netherlands have concluded that deforestation is one of the causes behind the negative consequences in climate changes at a global scale.

Deforestation is never a problem that can be solved after it happens. Reforestation with pines or other non-native species will only add to the loss of environmental balance at the area, given that the new species are not suited for the native wildlife or conditions, producing secondary changes in the microclimate and the local habitat.

Scientific study does not exist that can remotely assert that the metabolism of insects has any relation with or sizable impact on environmental and climate changes. Human activities including deforestation and gas emissions have been proven to be the main reasons for such changes.

The downside to deforestationAreas that are cleared of trees, especially in tropical rain forests, can be very sensitive to deforestation. Tropical rain forests have only a thin layer of topsoil that is easily eroded away if there is no vegetation holding it in place. Animals that are adapted to live in the forest usually cannot survive out in the open. Forests act as a heat sink; the process of photosynthesis actually makes the atmosphere cooler as the tree "breathes." Forests also trap moisture and increase humidity; the trees aspire, or give off, water as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Without the forests creating a reserve of moisture and water, this water evaporates and becomes useless to any animals.

Refer to the Portland State University link, below, for a well-balanced presentation on the effects of deforestation.

Response to "Official View"You say "official view" as if it means something. 600 years ago, the "official view" of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (which was the scientific organization of record, believe it or not, at that time) was that the world was flat. 400 years ago, the "official view" of the Church was that the Earth was the center of the universe. 200 years ago, the "official view" of most world governments was that slavery was perfectly acceptable. 120 years ago, the "official view" of most scientific organizations was that human flight was impossible. 60 years ago, the "official view" of scientific organizations was that space flight was impossible. 40 years ago, the "official view" of the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association was that homosexuality was a mental illness. An "official view" is political. Facts are scientific, and facts are what I'm presenting here, "official views" be damned.

There is no such thing as "environmental balance", either in the long run or in the short run. But if there was, well, it's a good thing I don't care about that. All I care about is saving humanity. If global warming is real, and if it's caused by an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and if the result is catastrophic, then we need to reverse it, right now. Not slow it down. Not stop it. Reverse it. Immediately. And we need to stop worrying about minor issues like"environmental balance". All of that pales in comparison to the looming catastrophe. Tell me, what will happen to your prescious "environmental balance" if temperatures soar 6 degrees C over the next hundred years? Yeah, that's what I thought. My plan's better.

You are right, there's no scientific study that says insects contribute more carbon dioxide than humans. There's also no scientific study that says the sky is blue. But it's true nonetheless. This statement about insects is a result of my own research and careful use of arithmetic.

Start with the fact that the average human exhales approximately 1 kilogram of carbon dioxide per day. Multiply that by 365 days, then by the 6 billion people on the planet, and you get a total contirbution from human respiration of about 2.19 Billion Metric Tons (BMT) per year.

Insect, like humans, respire. They inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, just like us. Of course, they are all much smaller than us, so the individual amounts of carbon dioxide they exhale are smaller. But they vastly outnumber us. I'm not just talking about numbers - I'm also talking total body weight. By how much do insects outweigh us? I've seen estimates as high as 300 times, and as low as 27 times. I'll go with low end and say that there is 27 times as much total insect body weight as total human body weight.

Now, at this point I have to make an assumption, but I believe it to be a reasonable assumption. This assumption is that, pound for pound, exhalation of carbon dioxide is equal across species. We could get into comparing respiratory system efficiency between humans and insects, but it really doesn't matter. Respiration is what provides energy to the body. And we know that, pound for pound, insects can do more work than humans, so they must use more energy, and therefore, must absorb more oxygen, and therefore exhale more carbon dioxide, pound for pound. So, if anything, insects exhale more carbon dioxide, pound for pound of body weight, than humans. But I have no way of determining how much more, so I'll go with the assumption that CO2 exhalation is equal on a pound-for-pound basis.

With that assumption, if the total biomass of insects is 27 times as high as that of humans, then insects, in total, exhale 27 times as much carbon dioxide as humans. 27 times 2.19 BMT is approximately 59.13 BMT per year.

Now, how much carbon dioxide is produced by the burning of fossil fuels? That's about 27-28 BMT per year. So, insects produce over twice as much carbon dioxide as humans burning fossil fuels. If you add in human respiration (2 BMT, respiration of domesticated animals (about 4 BMT, computed the same way as insect respiration), and other industrial production of CO2 (about 1 BMT), the total contribution of humans to atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 35 BMT. Insects still produce 70% more than us.

Now, that may not qualify as a "scientific study", but it's a very conservative scientific estimate of the total contribution of insects to atmospheric carbon dioxide, using known facts and conservative assumptions. Less conservative assumptions would put that contribution at 20-50 times as much as that of humans. So, yeah, "scientific study" or not - I stand by my estimates, and will continue to do so until you can refute them with an equally logical, scientific, and arithmetically correct argument.

Answer 4

Advantages:

• Removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and slows global warming.
• Adds oxygen to the air.
• Provides homes for birds and animals

Disadvantages:

• None.

Answer 5

Advantages of reforestation include restoration of ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, and habitat creation for wildlife. However, challenges may include the time it takes for trees to mature and provide these benefits, competition with agriculture for land, and the need for proper land management to ensure success.

Answer 6

Yes, because its hard to enforce policies of reforestation in some areas of the world.

Answer 7

reforestation is very beneficail! it means by planting more trees you are able to reduce carbon emmisions as trees breath in carbon.

Answer 8

advantages there would be way more trees therefor more and cleaner oxygen and disadvantages paper and all products made from trees would not be the same if they wernt mabe out of trees