The Man Who Planted Trees, a French Tale

On Nov 19, 4:01*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"DaveS" wrote in message

...

In another thread this French classic inspirational tale of the union
between ecolgical transformation and a peoples well being, was
mentioned but i had forgotten the specific reference. I found
it . . . . The story's title is "The Man Who Planted Trees."

http://perso.ch/arboretum/man_tree.htm

This story by Jean Giono has distinct literary value but should not
be assumed factual in every particular. * I briefly lived in Menerbes,
Vaucluse, in 1958, when Elzéard Bouffier had been forgotten -- if
he ever existed.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

According to Wikipedia:

"Giono himself explained in a 1957 letter to an official of the city
of Digne:

Sorry to disappoint you, but Elzéard Bouffier is a fictional person.
The goal was to make trees likeable, or more specifically, make
planting trees likeable."

The article goes on to mention many real life counterparts to Bouffier
including, not surprisingly, our own peripatetic Johnny Appleseed (aka
Jonathan Chapman). Interestingly, Giono's story was made into an
animated short feature in 1987 and won an academy award.

As for the transformative power of trees described in the story, well,
anyone who has seen a denuded landscape turned into a forest (or vice
versa, as is, unfortuately, more often the case) can testify to the
existence of real miracles.

So the story is true enough.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:

"DaveS" wrote in message

http://perso.ch/arboretum/man_tree.htm

Very nice.

including, not surprisingly, our own peripatetic Johnny Appleseed (aka
Jonathan Chapman).

I'm from Ohio and one of my grandparent's was a Chapman...

anyone who has seen a denuded landscape turned into a forest (or vice
versa, as is, unfortuately, more often the case) can testify to the
existence of real miracles.

Down here (in the upper elevation hills, not the desert), a Bouffier
who would restore the land _would_ be cutting down trees, working on
clearing the endless square miles of juniper trees and restoring the
grasslands. It's grass that would bring back the springs, not
trees...trees suck the ground dry.

Jon.

On Nov 20, 7:32*am, Jonathan Cook wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:

"DaveS" wrote in message

http://perso.ch/arboretum/man_tree.htm

Very nice.

including, not surprisingly, our own peripatetic Johnny Appleseed (aka
Jonathan Chapman).

I'm from Ohio and one of my grandparent's was a Chapman...

anyone who has seen a denuded landscape turned into a forest (or vice
versa, as is, unfortuately, more often the case) can testify to the
existence of real miracles.

Down here (in the upper elevation hills, not the desert), a Bouffier
who would restore the land _would_ be cutting down trees, working on
clearing the endless square miles of juniper trees and restoring the
grasslands. It's grass that would bring back the springs, not
trees...trees suck the ground dry.

Jon.

True enough for those landscapes meant to be grasslands, sage steppe,
savanna, etc. And I am doing a little work to encourage some of the
Palouse prairie natives. like the Bunch grasses, Idaho fescue, Prairie
junegrass etc. Over-seeded about 5 acres with Bluebunch Wheatgrass
(Agropyron spicatum) and have a war going with invasive Star Thistle
and a little push mower. So, as in many things, all or nothing is not
where it is at. Even in forest there are the native grasses and forbs
etc that play their role and within the forest damn few mono-cultures
can persist without a reaction, usually negative. I am sure there are
exceptions but these heuristics are what I work with.

Having said the above, on the Palouse much of the river bottoms were
forested (and still are in lots of places) populated with cottonwood,
alder, willow, and remnant Ponderosa, etc. and all manner of deciduous
shrubs. That is what keeps the river water cool after it leaves the
mountains and creates a cold water, oxygenated trout fishery. The
Ponderosa and plants like the desert buckwheats etc are usually back a
bit from the water courses, on the lithosol, but where their roots tap
into the sub irrigation. Tree-wise I am focused on the Ponderosa, and
nearer to the river, willow. Shade, shade, shade, and thats how the
cooler water should extend the trout water further and further down
thru the wheat country.

There are a few places i would like to re-establish some camus like
was there when L&C walked thru 200 years ago, along a Nez pierce
trail, and there is a significant ponderosa remnant nearby that I
would like to see extended thru my neighbor's, and my place.

Along the remaining tillable land now in Wheat, I have moved back in a
strip further from the river and am starting to plant ponderosa to the
field side of a road/dike opposite a site where the river wants to
move. Part of me says do what you will river, another part says
resist. So this planting is a compromise. In any case most of the
wheat field stays.

Jon, I don't recall the species mix, but as i recall the "bosque"
associated with the river and the pueblos from Albuquerque up thru
Taos and in some other areas is a similar kind of landscape. Anb per
your comment about the Junipers. . . we had a similar program in Utah
lo these many years ago, where-in the invasive Piny-on and Juniper was
"chained down" to restore grazing areas in the valleys and foothills
South of Provo.

All this jawing might make what i am doing sound like a bigger deal
than it is. Mostly it's an old man's hobby. You can barely see the
effects of my work so far. What impresses me is the work some of the
farmers are doing. And most of what I am doing has benefited from
advise from farmers, the water trust and a Walla Walla
environmentalist ("conservationist" is a better, less hot button word
in SE Wa). These folks have planted miles of river edge, and their
practices affect thousands of acres. They work within a very
structured econ/govt/climate/science environment that can grate on
their common sense of independence. But IMHO they are our natural
allies.

BTW Bob W. occasional Roffian, knows lots about the forest lands in
this part of the country.

Dave
OK, plant a tree, AND/OR a native grass.

On Nov 20, 1:22*pm, DaveS wrote:


All this jawing might make what i am doing sound like a bigger deal
than it is.

Well, yeah. Or, no. Depends on who's listening and offering which
ill-founded opinionon which ill-founded opinion. Not that any one ill-
founded opinion is necessarily much worse.....or better.....than
another, but it makes a big difference in whether or not it sounds
like a big deal.

Mostly it's an old man's hobby.

Mostly. But hope resides in the fact that there are YOUNG men, and
women, out there who will expend the time and effort to think for
themselves before they get old (assuming they live long enough for the
latter) and take up old men's hobbys.

You can barely see the effects of my work so far.

This is, in itself, almost certainly a good thing. If one could
easily see the effects, so far, it is a good bet that it would not be
a pretty thing to look at. Sort of a fundamental law of what people
touch they almost certainly **** up.

What impresses me is the work some of the
farmers are doing. And most of what I am doing has benefited from
advise from farmers, the water trust and a Walla Walla
environmentalist ("conservationist" is a better, less hot button word
in SE Wa). These folks have planted miles of river edge, and their
practices affect thousands of acres. They work within a very
structured econ/govt/climate/science environment that can grate on
their common sense of independence. But IMHO they are our natural
allies.

Planting trees in riparian habitats in semi-arid county is pretty much
a no-brainer. Luckily, the world suffers from no shortage of no-
brainers. The work should go on apace.

Meanwhile, "allies" are people who think like me. Period.

Sobering thought.

BTW Bob W. occasional Roffian, knows lots about the forest lands in
this part of the country.

Bob is the only person we've encountered here who is apparently well
grounded in the science concerning forest lands of that part of the
country. No disrespect intended (science ain't nothing to scoff at),
but there are other aspects of forests (and whatnot all) worthy of
consideration. That said, I think Bob's views are ALWAYS worth taking
seriously, and are generally a vastly better place to start than most
of the crap that passes through here on virtually any topic.

Dave
OK, plant a tree, AND/OR a native grass.

And. Definitely AND!

Wolfgang
who, though willing enough to be proved wrong, still harbors a strong
suspicion that grasses and trees somehow managed to cohabit not only
north america as a whole, but even many a local ecosystem generally
characterized by one or the other in the common imagination.

On Nov 20, 9:32*am, Jonathan Cook wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:

"DaveS" wrote in message

http://perso.ch/arboretum/man_tree.htm

Very nice.

including, not surprisingly, our own peripatetic Johnny Appleseed (aka
Jonathan Chapman).

I'm from Ohio and one of my grandparent's was a Chapman...

"The" Chapman of interest in this discussion?

anyone who has seen a denuded landscape turned into a forest (or vice
versa, as is, unfortuately, more often the case) can testify to the
existence of real miracles.

Down here (in the upper elevation hills, not the desert), a Bouffier
who would restore the land _would_ be cutting down trees, working on
clearing the endless square miles of juniper trees and restoring the
grasslands.

Of course.....maybe.....though he might (more economically and
beneficially) resort to fire than to cutting.

It's grass that would bring back the springs, not
trees

That's a tough call. Complicated business. Probably, the best bet
would be to set fire to Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc., and gut-
shoot anyone and everyone who responded to the fires with intent to
put them out.

...trees suck the ground dry.

Well, not exactly. Tress (generally, and not surprisingly, given
their size and physiology) require a great deal more water than do
grasses. But this is why trees tend to dominate in areas where there
IS a lot more moisture. In fact, in prairie domintated regions, light
rainfalls never reach the soil at all (all of the water is trapped
either by the dense vegetation relatively high above ground or the
dense mat of decaying matter just above the soil), and even heavy
rainfalls may not reach the soil. Prairie plants (the forbs as well
as the grasses) have very deep roots, to extract whatever small
amounts of water may be available, and they are very efficient at
extracting whatever moisture is available. In the tension zones,
where prairie meets forest, it's pretty much a tossup, dependent on a
number of factors.....fire being among the best know (though not
necessarily the most prominent) among them. Where one or the other
predemonimates in contravention to perceived historical ground cover,
some factor other than rainfall may have come to dominate. But that
factor is almost certainly NOT that one or the other sucks the ground
dry. They all do that (well, actually, none of them does.....but they
come close enough.....or not, depending). Where the trees win, it may
well be (and often is) that they do so by shading the grasses et al.,
beyond their tolerance. Sometimes not. It's never simple. That's a
fundamental law of ecology. Yeah, I know, Commoner missed it.

If trees are now growing where you thought grasses should dominate,
you should first ask whether the one scenario or the other more
closely matches expectations built on current environmental factors,
and not just on what someone or other says was the case back in his or
her own twisted perception of an idyllic childhood. Remember that
there were once flourishing civilizations in your part of the country
based on agricultural practices that are no longer viable today. Were
there trees there 500 years ago? 1000?

Wolfgang

Forces of change on the trees described in the story said, was seen as barren land, forests can prove the existence of a miracle. Allegedly prairie landscape, sage steppe, a real prairie, such as brash and desert plants such as Rosa, is usually a little behind on the river, sediment, but the root causes such as the use of irrigation.