Upstream | September 09, 2011 | 16 comments

The Importance of Trees in the Hydrological Cycle

Forests are the lungs of the land. Trees produce about half of the air on Earth, inhaling carbon dioxide and exhaling oxygen. Algae and plankton in the oceans account for the other half.

Not only do trees (and all plants) convert carbon into oxygen through photosynthesis, they actually exude molecules which form mist and low lying clouds that produce gentle rain.

This time-lapse video taken in Yosemite Valley is a clear example of “evapotranspiration.“ (See bottom post.) The forest draws up water deep in the ground through photosynthesis of the sun and leaves, producing a chemical exchange of carbon and oxygen, giving off water in the process.

I didn’t learn about evapotranspiration from a textbook or an article. I learned it living among the coastal redwoods of Mendocino California 30 years ago watching the interplay of mist in the trees.

Living at the mouth of the Ten Mile River when the Reagan clear-cutting started I learned a lot about soil erosion, floods, droughts and wildfire as well. In the ten years that I lived there I watched the fog-drenched foothills turn into a tinderbox. Then came the floods of the Century.

Al Gore was a freshman Senator and NASA’s James Hansen had just alerted the world to global warming. I listened. And began paying attention to climate change around the planet (not just my own back yard).

Only very recently has the huge role of forests in the hydrological cycle come to light. It has also been recently discovered that northern boreal forests are every bit as important to the atmosphere as tropical rainforests.

Hopefully this post will generate links to science articles expounding further. For instance, it is a fact that one fast growing young tree can transpire over 50 pounds of C02 from the air every year. But I have yet to find how much H20 it can evapotranspire.

I wrote a column in the Mendocino Commentary under the penname jonEric and on September 9, 1987 I published this poem:

Fire Fall

Night is cold
Sun brings dew
Drops sprout seed
Roots tap spring
Soft is rain
Men cut trees
Clouds go high
Rain falls far
Doesn’t hit
Lightning does
Trees burn
Moon is red
Day is dark
Downpours come
Soil goes
Deserts stay
Time repeats
But can we?

I never imagined back then that we would still be arguing over this 30 years later.
  1. groups:
    Green,   Upstream,   Climate Extremes
  2. tags:
    Global Warming Trees hydrologic cycle
  3.     
    |

16 comments // The Importance of Trees in the Hydrological Cycle

  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Can you imagine that something so simple and necessary to survival has been forgotten in place of greed? Just to mention however, there are developing countries now employing agroforestry in line with growing crops which balances water kept in the soil as well as providing much needed nutrients through the root systems. This can help in drought stricken areas, which is where the Moringa tree comes in. In Malawi, this is not only providing relief from drought but also giving people, particularly women the chance to make a living as well as providing trees that purify water and provide food and medicine. Nature is truly a miracle and we need to get back to delving into its mysteries... if we do that we will find answers to what ails the world we are making out of our apathy, greed and ignorance.

      I'll also try to find more on this. I posted on it a while ago but can't find that link.

      Oh, and I voted you back up.

      You don't vote down trees, cowards.

    • 9 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • 0
      coolplanet  
    • JanforGore:

      I'm looking for a recent article posted a few months ago about the discovery that foilage gives off gasses responsible for the formation of rainclouds. They discovered this from the nucleus of hail.
      What I find so important about this is all forests, not just rainforests as previously thought, play a huge role in the global hydrological cycle, particularly in the intensity of rainfall (the more trees the gentler the rain and the fewer trees the more severe I've noticed).
      I even wonder if the reason the northeast U.S. hasn't been suffering as much drought and floods, except for the occasional hurricane, is because it's almost completely reforested to what it was in 1492, while places experiencing ongoing drought and floods are mainly farmland still stripped of most trees.

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • coolplanet:

      I know what article you are speaking about because I saw it too. I just can't remember right now where I saw it. If I find it I will post it. Trees recycle about half or more of the precipitation striking rainforests through evaporation and evapotranspiration. So when trees are removed that transpiration and evapotranspiration logically is decreased, especially in tree roots. This lessens rainfall which lessens cloud cover and increases arid conditions. I think it would be interesting to do a survey of global deforestation and compare it to rainfall/drought rates in those areas. I also remember reading an article about how trees in general are responsible for cycling water around the planet. I'll try to find that too.

    • 9 months ago
  • ampersand
    • +1
      ampersand  
    • My sentiments exactly.
      The recurring mystery is how nearly a generation has passed and a vast sea of humanity seems as just as clueless and inert as they were before all the impacts of the systematic insensate greed was obvious in every area of their lives.

      One wonders how much each one has to actually be choking in toxic waste before they take any kind of action.

      I keep planting trees but I don't count on seeing any evidence of a vast change among my fellow hungry monkeys in my lifetime.

      Most commentators bewail the danger to the existing system.
      I've come to the point where I'm looking forward to its collapse.

    • 9 months ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • ampersand:

      Most of the male babies had their body part sliced off soon after birth. Then many did not get a warm breast but a hard glass bottle or plastic with PBA's IN THE MOUTH. Then they were ripped out of the house and handed to strangers at a "day care" center housed like they were a piece of furniture in a day storage facility. Then they got plastic toys and chewed on them, handled them so the poisons entered their bloodstream through wide open, heat-expanded skin pores.

      The Dad and Uncles were all sent off to war so they only had women as Role Models. Poisons have crippled boy's & girl's endocrine systems and thyroid so yep, they don't stand up well to oppressors of any kind. That was a part that was also sliced off.

      Their only hope is Jesus, and when he gets here I sincerely hope he sees what they would have been not the crippled slag they are.

    • 9 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +1
      coolplanet  
    • ampersand:

      I have come to that point myself.
      Once I was an optimist and believed we would get our collective ass together.
      But the 2000 election changed all that.
      In 2000 we still had a window of opportunity to address this emergency.
      I thing it's too late now.

    • 9 months ago
  • ampersand
    • +1
      ampersand  
    • coolplanet:

      There have been a thousand examples I could note. In fact, it would be hard to think of any area of modern life and commerce without more examples than one could count, but I think one egregious example that stands out for me was when I saw the election results being magically amended during a "bomb scare" in the Republican controlled courthouse in Cincinnati Ohio on election night in 2004.
      I have traveled a lot in the world and almost every square inch of land I've stood on, in different states, and different countries, and different hemispheres, (including every one of the three different neighborhoods I grew up in in the US) have been completely devastated by toxic human stupidity and greed.
      Forgive me if I sound like a marginalized crank in this regard.
      In truth, I have been as blessed as anyone can be in this system.
      Yet, I would happily see it all buried tomorrow if I had that power.

    • 9 months ago
  • mab001
    • +1
      mab001  
    • Awesome and highly interesting post! I enjoyed this and look forward to researching further info as well on the topic.

    • 9 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • Gravity_Man
    • +1
      Gravity_Man  
    • Good post coolplanet. Here's a few peripheral thoughts. One fact that many people are not aware of is that animals (us) exhale most of the O2 they had just inhaled. Has to do with a narrow range O2 vs CO2 balance our lungs have to observe at all times for us to live. We use a fraction of what the trees produce, so what they produce (O2) goes a great deal farther. Animal lungs do not thoroughly burn up oxygen like combustion engines that compresses the O2 prior to explosion.

      If more of the ocean water was evaporated we would recover a great amount of land... so this planet could support many more than 7 billion people. If those people were also vegetarians there would be a great deal more oxygen not being used up by domestic food animals. So without stretching too far this planet could sustain easily over 25,000,000,000 (billion) people were it done properly. We will likely still eat fish and seafood, and certainly healthy plankcton. Jellyfish have been found to be excellent for restoring our mental faculties (see product from: Prevagen).

      Mammals eating other mammals is akin to cows eating cows, which is known to contribute to Mad Cow Disease, so perhaps we need much more seafood and MUCH LESS COWS. Just a thought. And more California walnuts!!!

    • 9 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +1
      coolplanet  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Thank you G_man.
      There is an interesting hypothesis postulated by Prof. William Ruddiman of Virginia U.
      In Plows, Plagues & Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate (2005 Princeton) Ruddiman proposs that the mini ice age of the 18th and 19th centuries was caused by the sudden death of tens of millions of American Indians, removing carbon and methane from the atmosphere.
      I have long said that Earth could support 10 billion people IF people weren't so selfish and stupid.
      But obviously that ain't gonna happen.
      At the rate we're going I would be surprised if there are 2 billion humans by the year 2050.

    • 9 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • coolplanet
    • +1
      coolplanet  
    • http://www.smh.com.au/news/Environment/Fewer-trees-less-rain-study-uncovers-defo...

      Fewer Trees, Less Rain: Study Uncovers Deforestation Equation

      Australian scientists say they have found proof that cutting down forests reduces rainfall.

      The finding, independent of previous anecdotal evidence and computer modelling, uses physics and chemistry to show how the climate changes when forests are lost.

      Ann Henderson-Sellers, director of environment at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, at Lucas Heights, and Dr Kendal McGuffie, from the University of Technology, Sydney, made the discovery by analysing variations in the molecular structure of rain along the Amazon River.

      Not all water, Professor Henderson-Sellers said, was made from the recipe of two atoms of "common" hydrogen and one of "regular" oxygen.

      About one in every 500 water molecules had its second hydrogen atom replaced by a heavier version called deuterium. And one in every 6500 molecules included a heavy version of the oxygen atom.

      Knowing the ratio allowed scientists to trace the Amazon's water as it flowed into the Atlantic, evaporated, blew back inland with the trade winds to fall again as rain, and finally returned to the river.

      "It's as if the water was tagged," she said.

      While the heavier water molecules were slower to evaporate from rivers and groundwater, they were readily given off by the leaves of plants and trees, through transpiration.

      "Transpiration pumps these heavy guys back into the atmosphere."

      But the study showed that since the 1970s the ratio of the heavy molecules found in rain over the Amazon and the Andes had declined significantly.

      The only possible explanation was that they were no longer being returned to the atmosphere to fall again as rain because the vegetation was disappearing. "With many trees now gone and the forest degraded, the moisture that reaches the Andes has clearly lost the heavy isotopes that used to be recycled so effectively," Professor Henderson-Sellers said.

      Tom Lyons, professor of environmental sciences at Perth's Murdoch University, said there was now "certainly very strong evidence that changes in surface conditions have an impact on the climate. In some parts of the world the impact is very marked". The Amazon research "helps us understand the mechanism".

      Professor Henderson-Sellers said the average water molecule fell as rain and re-evaporated fives times during its journey from the tropical Atlantic to the river's starting point in the Andes mountains. Forests played a vital role in keeping the heavy molecules, and their far more common relatives, moving through the water cycle.

      "People will tell you that when you remove the forests it rains less," she said, adding, however, such anecdotal evidence, and even computer modelling, did not convince everyone.

      "This is the first demonstration that deforestation has an observable impact on rainfall."

    • 9 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • coolplanet
  • coolplanet
coolplanet
more from Upstream:

top videos