New Maps Show Spread and Impact of Drought On California Forests (latimes.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Maps Show Spread and Impact of Drought On California Forests (latimes.com)

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday December 31, 2015 @11:44AM from the how-dry-I-am dept.

An anonymous reader writes: According to a new study 58 million trees are dead or dying due to the California drought and hundreds of millions could die if the conditions persist. The LA Times reports: "The researchers used an airplane, high-tech remote sensing technology and satellite imagery to produce the first maps that show how much water the state's trees have lost. Virtually every forest has been affected in some way, said study leader Greg Asner, an ecologist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University. Asner said he was struck by the 'sheer degree of loss and mortality' in Southern California forests as he flew over the depleted trees."

58 of 88 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Trees in desert die? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-31 11:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

OMG, trees in a desert are going to die?
1. Re:Trees in desert die? by phantomfive · 2015-12-31 11:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  OMG, trees in a desert are going to die?
  Most of California isn't a desert, and most of the desert parts of California don't have trees (because, you know, it's a desert).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Trees in desert die? by Goetterdaemmerung · 2015-12-31 12:12 · Score: 2
  
  OMG, trees in a desert are going to die?
  Most of California isn't a desert, and most of the desert parts of California don't have trees (because, you know, it's a desert).
  It's not a desert yet. If the drought continues and they continue to pump every last drop out of the ground it might become one.
3. Re:Trees in desert die? by dywolf · 2015-12-31 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  technically not a tree
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
4. Re:Trees in desert die? by budgenator · 2016-01-01 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Most of California isn't a desert, and most of the desert parts of California don't have trees (because, you know, it's a desert).
  Most of the world's landmass at SoCal's latitude is desert. This band is called the Hourse Latitudes. Southern California is at the same lattitude as the Sahara desert.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
5. Re:Trees in desert die? by phantomfive · 2016-01-01 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  So is Alabama, and that place is wet as the backside of a hog. The "Hourse Latitudes" have poorly defined borders as a biome predictor.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re: Trees in desert die? by charlow1 · 2016-01-01 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  That may be, but it in no way predicts what it will be at the time of. Normal year's spring runoff. It was only 5% of normal in the Sierra's and shockingly only 16 % of normal in the mountainous areas of the Pacific Northwest.
7. Re:Trees in desert die? by budgenator · 2016-01-02 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  East Texan, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia are the reason I used most instead of all.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
8. Re:Trees in desert die? by phantomfive · 2016-01-02 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  The point is, you can't say, "oh, it's at X latitude, so therefore it's a desert."
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
9. Re:Trees in desert die? by budgenator · 2016-01-04 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  You can say that at 30 degrees latitude land tends is either desert or arid except for a small area known as the gulf coast.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
10. Re:Trees in desert die? by phantomfive · 2016-01-04 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to know if California is a desert, it's better to just look at California. You know, look at actual data instead of a generalized model.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
11. Re:Trees in desert die? by budgenator · 2016-01-04 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  The Mojave Desert (pronounced: /mhvi/ mo-HAH-vee) is a rain-shadow, mostly high desert area, that occupies a significant portion of southeastern California and smaller parts of central California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah and northwestern Arizona in the United States. The Mojave Desert's boundaries are generally defined by the presence of Yucca brevifolia (Joshua trees), considered an indicator species for this desert. It is the driest of the North American deserts.[5] The desert is believed to support between 1,750 and 2,000 species of plants.[6]
  It is roughly rectangular in shape,[5] bounded by the Great Basin Desert to the north,[5] and the Sonoran Desert to the south[5] and east[citation needed]. The topographical boundaries include the Tehachapi Mountains to the west, and the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains to the south. The mountain boundaries are quite distinct since they are outlined by the two largest faults in California, the San Andreas and Garlock faults. The Mojave Desert displays typical basin and range topography. Higher elevations above 2,000 feet (610 m) in the Mojave are commonly referred to as the High Desert; however, Death Valley is the lowest elevation in North America at 282 feet (86 m) below sea level and is one of the Mojave Desert's more notorious places. It occupies less than 50,000 square miles, making it the smallest of the North American deserts.[5] Mojave Desert
  
  Sadly, the history of California Droughts is that they last for a century or two.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
12. Re:Trees in desert die? by phantomfive · 2016-01-04 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  No one doubts that the Mojave Desert is in fact a desert, you don't have to post a link to Wikipedia. Your model says that a certain latitude is a desert, but obviously that fails because Los Angeles is not a desert, San Diego is not a desert (although close), the Laguna mountains are certainly not a desert; most of India and Southeast Asia is not a desert. You can't go based on the model, you have to go based on the data, and look at individual places if you want to know if they'll be a desert or not. Most of California is not a desert, especially the farm land.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Central Valley by phantomfive · 2015-12-31 11:53 · Score: 1

I drove through the Central Valley recently, the trees look very happy with the water they've been getting.

We're getting a normal amount of rain so far this year, which is good, but the reservoirs are still empty, so if the rain doesn't continue, or if we have a bad year next year, then we'll still be in trouble.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:Central Valley by Darinbob · 2015-12-31 16:36 · Score: 2
  
  Drive around some more then. Lots of orchards were being left to die in summer, so rain in winter does no good. Others were cut back to their stumps to have new growth grafted. Kind of scary to see brown everywhere.
  Also as far as those maps go, many trees in Sequoia & Kings Canyon have died off due to pests (tussock moth), which could account for much of those low-water canopy sections. Of course the largest wild fire by far this year was in Sequoia and Kings Canyon, 151 thousand acres (612 square kilometers). Not sure if the maps were before or after the fire.
2. Re:Central Valley by antdude · 2015-12-31 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  Let's hope El Nino help this drought situation. It won't fix it 100% though.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
3. Re:Central Valley by dwillden · 2016-01-01 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  But trees seldom die due to drought. They simply grow less. Thus giving us tree rings that show us droughts and wet years. This drought is only a few years long so far, there have been much longer droughts in the past, indicated by the tree rings of trees that lived through those much longer droughts just fine.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Put this in perspective by jonsmirl · 2015-12-31 11:58 · Score: 1

1938 storm 'The Long Island Express'
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
"Cars also took a beating - roughly 26,000 vehicles sustained damage in the storm - while 2 billion trees were reportedly wiped out across New York and New England."
Today you can't even tell 2 billion trees were knocked down. And it has happened multiple times.
1. Re:Put this in perspective by jonsmirl · 2015-12-31 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  How many trees on Earth....
  3,000,000,0000,000 - 3 trillion
  http://www.npr.org/sections/go...
2. Re: Put this in perspective by charlow1 · 2016-01-01 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Not true. Yes, New England is heavily forested. But go just about anywhere and try to find old growth forest of any kind. Not easy to do because it is very rare.
3. Re: Put this in perspective by charlow1 · 2016-01-01 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  And? Much of what was thriving triple canopy rainforest in the greater Amazon Basin only 30 years ago is now gone, deliberately burned, cleared for agriculture, and so forth. Most of the land's fertility in that part of the world consists of its stand, living vegetation. Once that is gone, what is left is hard, infertile lateritic soil that at best supports low value scrub species. Once the forest is gone, also gone is the source of evapotranspiration-induced rainfall. Due to the widespread destruction of the Amazon Basin's once thriving rain forest, Brazil has begun to experience major drought conditions.
Build the Yellowstone pipeline by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-31 12:10 · Score: 1

Bring the water from central Canada down to California. Problem solved!
Plus we need it for the fruits..
1. Re:Build the Yellowstone pipeline by MightyMartian · 2015-12-31 12:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The days when California could rely on taking other jurisdictions' water are long long gone. It was pretty much an undeclared war when Southern California began redirecting every significant source of fresh water its way eight decades ago, but this time around I think it would get even more violent. California's agriculture industry has been on an unsustainable path for the last hundred years.
  Gobbling up natural aquifers that took millions of years to form to grow fucking almonds. I can't imagine a surer sign of the sheer stupidity of humanity than that.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Build the Yellowstone pipeline by Darinbob · 2015-12-31 16:40 · Score: 2
  
  Southern California is not the same as Northern and Central California which do not get water from other states but rely on snow pack, reservoirs, and wells (aquifers drying up though over the last hundred years). Almonds are not the biggest crop, and until relatively recently were mostly concentrated in only a few areas. Biggest problem is the byzantine water rights issues, with rights handed out in the early days when the state was small which are still in effect today.
3. Re:Build the Yellowstone pipeline by Ramze · 2015-12-31 19:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Southern California relies on the Colorado River -- which is drying up due to drought, dams, and water being diverted for farmlands. It now ends 50 miles inland instead of reaching the sea.
  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...
  California doesn't receive enough rainfall to support the agriculture grown in the region (except maybe the north west portion). Almonds may not be the biggest crop, but they are among the ones which require the most water, and almond growers say that even though they're now giving their almond trees brackish water from wells, they plan to grow more almond trees b/c they're very profitable -- water shortage be damned.
  Most farmland is in mid-eastern to eastern half of the US... which gets enough rainfall to support crops. California generally doesn't rely on rainfall - it needs water pumped from rivers, aqueducts, and aquifers. The areas of CA that get the most rainfall are the mountains which feed a few rivers. It's not sustainable. Water rights issues won't matter if there's no water to squabble over. CA needs to build more storage for fresh water -- often, when it rains, water washes quickly into concrete channels and is fed out to the sea instead of stored. Sad, really.
  https://www.crwr.utexas.edu/gi...
4. Re:Build the Yellowstone pipeline by Gavagai80 · 2015-12-31 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  Efficient storage isn't generally an option due to environmental concerns. New dams are almost never allowed by the courts, and there are minimum required releases from reservoirs to keep certain river fish populations happy. Of course if there were a serious water shortage people would start collecting on their rooftops like in Australia, but California has plenty of water for its population, just not for the large scale farming... so nobody is considering drastic measures.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
5. Re: Build the Yellowstone pipeline by charlow1 · 2016-01-01 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Or to ship millions of gallons of scarce dryland water back east in the form of iceberg lettuce.
Nothing New in the US Southwest by BoRegardless · 2015-12-31 12:15 · Score: 1

My books on the pre-history of the American SouthWest over the last 2200 years is riddled with severe drought indications that caused entire civilizations to abandon their settlements and move to new areas. Thomas Mails described a lot of this in his book "The Pueblo Children of the Earth Mother.
1. Re:Nothing New in the US Southwest by chipschap · 2015-12-31 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Global warming must have started a couple of thousand years earlier than we thought. Maybe they burned too many buffalo chips back then.
2. Re:Nothing New in the US Southwest by BoRegardless · 2015-12-31 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  The interesting thing is that the business exodus has been quietly under the radar for a decade with thousands of businesses either moving or expanding out of state. See: http://www.spectrumlocationsol...
3. Re:Nothing New in the US Southwest by Gavagai80 · 2015-12-31 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Those must've been some really unimportant thousands of businesses, since our economy has been booming.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
4. Re:Nothing New in the US Southwest by Maxo-Texas · 2015-12-31 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Article shows California is doing better than the U.S. overall and slightly worse in 4 industries out of 16 employment areas.
  http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...
  Graph here shows that california GDP growth is slightly exceeding U.S. GDP growth in 2012 to 2014.
  http://www.lao.ca.gov/Blog/Med...
  It fell a little harder in 2008, 2009 than the rest of the U.S.
  Seems like this is just business turnover which is happening everywhere all the time.
  Personal income growth exceeded all but four out of fifty states in 2015.
  http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...
  http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbe...
  2013- California surpasses Italy and Russia to become the 8th largest economy in the entire world.
  Looks like California is fine.
  see also
  http://www.statista.com/statis...
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
5. Re: Nothing New in the US Southwest by charlow1 · 2016-01-01 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  CA used to be the sixth largest economy in the world. Also, poor Italy, after years of mismanagement by Berlusconi. And Russia, we shall see. Putin's popularity was the result of unprecedented prosperity due to the high revenues made possible when the world price of oil was well over$100 per barrel. The Saudis have since driven that down well south of $50 per barrel. So, let's not bank on anything' being judged on the merits of an economy's GDP exceeding that of with Italy or Russia.
6. Re: Nothing New in the US Southwest by charlow1 · 2016-01-01 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Oh? The globe has warmed and cooled many times over its history, due to purely natural phenomena. There is now however clear correlation with the inexorable rise in the planet's temperature since the beginning of the fossil-fueled industrial revolution. There is strong geological evidence that bit for the increase in the atmosphere's "greenhouse gases," we would already be moving back toward the next glaciation. If only our forebears had not killed off the Bison. We would now have a sustainable source of both food and fiber fueled by the sun and the grasses of the Great Plains, plus all that lovely organi recycle able biomass that Bison produce!
7. Re: Nothing New in the US Southwest by Maxo-Texas · 2016-01-01 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/...
  Californiaâ(TM)s eighth place showing in 2013 tells the story of the stateâ(TM)s comeback after years of hard knocks starting in 2007.
  "Levy said California is poised to overtake the fifth and sixth largest economies this year."
  And...the prior certs are outdated. As of June, it's the 7th largest economy.
  http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c...
  "California Bounces Back As Worldâ(TM)s 7th Largest Economy, Larger Than Brazil"
  There's really a knife's edge dividing the 5th and below economies. California could easily become the 4th largest with a small increase.
  However, it's unlikely to exceed that of the U.S., China, Germany, and Japan. Especially since any gains it sees will also increase the U.S. so by definition, it can never be #1.
  I'm not finding a lot of support for the california doom and gloom scenario.
  I'm a texan who's been to california once in my life so no axe to grind here.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
California is so surreal! by fustakrakich · 2015-12-31 12:33 · Score: 1

How weird must it be, when you're looking out over the ocean, that the governor is telling you there is a water shortage? This is the very same governor that told us (I was living there then) the very same thing 38 years ago! And look how far they have progressed... NOT! Absolutely astounding...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:California is so surreal! by phantomfive · 2015-12-31 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is the very same governor that told us (I was living there then) the very same thing 38 years ago!
  
  That's the surreal part. Same governor, same issues, nothing changes.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:California is so surreal! by CanadianMacFan · 2015-12-31 15:39 · Score: 2
  
  Yes because desalination is so inexpensive and environmentally friendly that you can create so much fresh water in order to replace the rain missing on the mountains. /s
  If it's too expensive to supply most drinking water in many places in the world then why do many people keep on thinking that you can use desalination for watering crops which would require magnitudes more water? If agriculture isn't feasible then supplying water for nature is completely out of the question.
3. Re:California is so surreal! by fustakrakich · 2015-12-31 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, do without then. I'm sure the loses from doing nothing will be much less if your calculations are right.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
4. Re: California is so surreal! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-31 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  The choice is not doing nothing or desalination. Other choices can and more importantly are being made first.
  Like for example, fixing leaky pipes.
5. Re: California is so surreal! by fustakrakich · 2015-12-31 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they're not even doing that, are they? The behavior won't change until it all dries up. Then everybody will be starting a war. Eh, another 40 years down the drain. Let the kids deal with it.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
6. Re:California is so surreal! by Gavagai80 · 2015-12-31 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Of course there's no water shortage in an absolute sense -- not even a fresh water shortage if you wanted to transport all the rain from the northern part of the state to where it's wanted. There's a water-cheap-enough-for-growing-current-levels-of-affordable-food-without-damaging-natural-habitats shortage.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
7. Re: California is so surreal! by fustakrakich · 2016-01-01 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah yeah yeah, I've seen it all before. As soon as the "crisis" is over, it's back to the old ways. It was the same with gasoline. You should have been there in '73. The roads were nice and empty, making a bicycle ride in the city or up to Malibu a real pleasure. People are not changing at all. There is no longer any technical reason for a drought to ever happen. It is pure politics, a disagreement over the price, kinda like that Enron thing. And here is everybody, still making excuses. That's were the energy and money is being spent, on lawyers. Bogus...
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
8. Re:California is so surreal! by fustakrakich · 2016-01-01 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  So, it's an argument over the price. You are being robbed... I so wish people would wake up. Whatever happened to the motto, *Anything Anywhere Anytime*? Don't believe the bullshit. Take the bank bail out money back (that's 4.5 trillion) and put it to work. But please, don't try to tell me it's not worth it, that it's more beneficial to just let the place dry up, while these people fly off to Paris on a political junket on our dime. How so very fortunate for them that people believe everything they are told.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
9. Re: California is so surreal! by charlow1 · 2016-01-01 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? Ever tried to drink ocean water or grow plants with it? The water scarcity in California and elsewhere in the west is not a new phenomenon. Just think, why else would it have been necessary all those decades ago to build the California aqueduct? Other fact: from the time it was first attempted to apportion the rights to the Colorado River system's water, the system has been over-appropriated. I.e. Not enough water in the system to give anyone what they are supposedly entitled to have. There are those who say that the first modern-era gd roughy-induced ghost city will be Las Vegas. There is doubt that its primary source of water, Lake Mead will ever again fill to capacity.
10. Re: California is so surreal! by fustakrakich · 2016-01-02 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ever tried to drink ocean water or grow plants with it?
  Bleh, the money being spent in the derivatives markets (or the bailouts alone) would cover hundreds of processing plants. There's no excuse... You are being scammed into believing it can't be done. The only issue is and always has been the profit margin and who gets it.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Many trees lost to insect pests ... by drnb · 2015-12-31 12:36 · Score: 1

I drove through the Central Valley recently, the trees look very happy with the water they've been getting.
In the mountains of Southern California a lot of the tree loss is due to various insect species, some foreign invasive. Not sure about Northern California. It's not just from drought.
1. Re:Many trees lost to insect pests ... by sumdumass · 2015-12-31 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's if they are exposed to the cold winter. The underbrush acts like mulch and produces heat because of the decaying process. Unless it gets cold enough to freeze the underbrush and stop the decomposition process even a cold winter isn't a cold winter.
Re:He's only flown over the trees once? by dywolf · 2015-12-31 12:46 · Score: 1

random guy on the internet upstages scientists, thinks of something they never thought of in all their years of doing statistics.
news at 11.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Lies! by phantomfive · 2015-12-31 13:47 · Score: 1

Most of the trees aren't covered by snow this time of year.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:He's only flown over the trees once? by Fragnet · 2015-12-31 13:54 · Score: 1

You'd be surprised how many don't think about these things in their rush to publish and get publicity (funding) for their work. The scientific world is full to overflowing with bullshit. I note with interest it's now thought that eating an egg for breakfast won't give me heart problems. Fantastic news.

Of course people like you sneered at Lehrer's Decline Effect and let's not even mention the recent study showing that fewer than half of peer-reviewed psychology studies published in reputable journals could be replicated.

The absolutely most basic skill you apparently need to learn is how to think for yourself.
Re:Too bad the drought is over by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-31 15:16 · Score: 1

If only California had some sort of State Water Project, but sadly, Ronald Reagan killed it. The liberal fiend. He said Salmon were more important than people.
I cheated. by TapeCutter · 2015-12-31 17:25 · Score: 1

Article says fire affected areas were not counted in the survey.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:He's only flown over the trees once? by patriceweber · 2015-12-31 17:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, ecologists have no clue of tree phenology and ecosystem variability. Thank you Fragnet!
Re:He's only flown over the trees once? by riverat1 · 2015-12-31 20:29 · Score: 1

I think you need to be careful not to extend the findings on psychology studies to other sciences, particularly the physical sciences where objective measurements can confirm or reject a study.
Re:He's only flown over the trees once? by Fragnet · 2016-01-01 00:38 · Score: 1

I wouldn't extend it to experimental physics, where the constraints are so strong. I would be sceptical by default with this study however, simply because there are cycles in the physical processes involved that can be longer than the lifetime of the researcher.
Re:Too bad the drought is over by KGIII · 2016-01-01 08:42 · Score: 1

I've been to California. I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment. I must say, the fish are probably brighter and have better personalities. I assume that they also taste better.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re: He's only flown over the trees once? by charlow1 · 2016-01-01 10:33 · Score: 1

Oh? Now just how would you both measure and document the condition of apparently still-green trees except by flying with extensive instrumentation and infra-red photography to differentiate the healthy ones from those that are either severely stressed or already dying? And how much do you think such efforts cost and just who might be qualified to actually carry out such work?