My neighbor swore that planting trees in rows was better for the climate than random clusters

So my neighbor Dave, who runs a small farm in Oregon, told me last spring that planting trees in neat rows would capture more carbon because of airflow or something. I argued with him for like 20 minutes saying random clusters were more natural and better for biodiversity. Turns out after a whole season of monitoring soil moisture, his rows lost less water and had 30% more growth on average. Am I wrong for thinking nature knows best or does Dave have a point about designed systems being more efficient for carbon capture?

2 comments

2 Comments

ryan_carr591mo ago

Hang on, are we really comparing a single season on one guy's farm to the entire history of forest ecosystems? I mean, 30% more growth in rows sounds good, but what about root competition and long term soil health? Dave might have better airflow for now, but I'd bet those neat rows will need way more fertilizer and water once the canopy closes in. Seems like we're overthinking whether trees are carbon machines or actual living systems.

eric_ramirez671mo ago

Buddy of mine tried the exact same thing on a plot he owns out in Ohio. First couple years he was bragging about how his trees were outpacing the natural growth in the woods behind his house by a solid 25 percent. He tracked the rainfall and kept records like a madman. Then year five hit and his rows just stalled out hard. Roots started choking each other out under the soil and he had to chain saw half of them just to give the others a fighting chance. Meanwhile the messy patch of forest behind his barn kept chugging along without any help at all. He told me straight up that neat rows look great in a spreadsheet but trees want to be a community not an assembly line.