One Third of California's Trees Are Dead (sfgate.com)

"There are about 21 million acres of trees spread across California's 18 national forests, and the latest figures show 7.7 million of them -- more than one-third -- are dead." An anonymous reader quotes the San Francisco Chronicle: California's lingering drought has pushed the number of dead trees across the state past 100 million, an ecological event experts are calling dangerous and unprecedented in underlining the heightened risk of wildfires fueled by bone-dry forests. In its latest aerial survey released Friday, the U.S. Forest Service said 62 million trees have died this year in California, bringing the six-year total to more than 102 million.

Scientists blame five-plus years of drought on the increasing tree deaths -- tree "fatalities" increased by 100 percent in 2016 -- but the rate of their demise has been much faster than expected, increasing the risk of ecologically damaging erosion and wildfires even bigger than the largest blazes the state's seen this year.
An ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey says that on the bright side, this gives scientists a good chance to study how trees die.

Comments

Interesting they release these reports on rainy da

[Hadlock]

It's interesting that these reports are always released on rainy days (Which are pretty rare in SF actually)
 
Yes if you go up to Mt. Lassen it really probably is 1 in 3 trees. Certainly 1 in 10. If anything though, this is natural selection in progress; the only way to produce drought-resistant species is to have a serious drought, a big fire to clear out all the dead species, and then re-seed them with the drought resistant ones. If anything this is a good, big step forward for California over the long term in destroying the less viable/invasive species.

Re:What is the norm?

[hey!]

Sure there are always some dead trees in a forest, as anyone who's ever hunted or rambled in a forest knows. But one out of three? And from drought? It's not normal for the historical period.

However... There have been prehistoric droughts in California lasting decades, even centuries. Since we know this from tree rings, we know some rain must have fallen, but less than we are accustomed to as "normal" in historic times. These have been correlated to "radiative forcing", natural climate change mechanisms such as variations in the Earth's orbit and volcanic activity. Warmer Earth == drier California.

Re:Karma

[dfm3]

Contrary to popular belief, not all of California is arid desert. The trees TFA is talking about are not cultivated crops or or ornamental trees planted in urban/suburban areas, they are pine and Sequoya trees naturally occurring across thousands of square miles of subalpine forest in the Sierra Nevada region and in the hardwood/conifer forests found in the Pacific Coastal Range. Some of these ares receive far more than 80 inches of rain in an average year, and many of the affected trees are hundreds of years old.

As for the most populous areas in the state being desert, I could be pedantic and point out that potential natural vegetation in LA, San Diego, and the bay area would be predominantly chaparral, grassland, and coastal sage scrub, but I do get your point. However, those aren't the parts of the state that TFA is concerned with.

Re:Need to focus on priorities here!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well then CA shouldn't have a problem with cutting their water usage for alfalfa, irrigate pastures, and corn then, see page 3? Simple fact is that CA shouldn't be raising cattle, or cattle feed but they get the highest dairy subsidies so that it becomes economically viable to raise cattle there instead of in a climate that is better suited to doing so.