I caught this interesting story on NPR the other day about a professor who used NASA satellite data to calculate an estimate of the total number of trees on Earth. . That estimate is over 400 billion. (400,246,300,201 give or take – but probably a better number than anyone could guess!). . Of course, whenever you have calculated a number like this, you want to slice and dice it up in some interesting ways with other data you might have. . Professor Nalini Nadkarni did this by calculating the number of trees per person – and ended up with 61. . Of course, the story goes into how initially she thought this was a good number, but when placed against the tree products used in our daily lives, perhaps not.
I imagine someone else will take this a step further and try to analyze if 61 is probably too low. Exactly what is a good ratio to have for a healthy ecosystem?. . It is quite amazing when you think about our relationship with this plant. . I would have to guess that trees or elements of them appear in probably 75% or more of my photographs.
Large guardians..this is an impression I get when looking at some of these upward tree shots from this fall. . I was trying to create an impression of smallness in comparison to these towering giants (which really weren’t that tall in comparison to say giant redwoods, but exaggerated by using a wide angle lens). . After all, we are quite small in comparison – and now we know there is only 0.016 of a person per tree. . A different type of ratio to consider, and quite small indeed.
Hi! I like your blog. You write interesting things and dig up a lot of nice stuff around
. And ofcourse youre pictures are great! I found your site when surfing randomly around after photography blogs some moths agoe. I was then just starting my own blog – about silence. Since I have an RRS feed on you and read regularly. Thanks alot!
I once did a calculation on how mutch the norwegian population of Moose eats in one year. I found it was equivalent with the wheight of 2400 fully loaded Boing 474 jumbojets.. I alsow estimated the volume. If I pile it on a standard footbal feeld, and ignored gravitation, It would be about 2km high!
BR Andreas – Norwegian nature photographer
I like the idea of “large guardians”. I’ve often felt this and even have one particular tree up where I hike, that I feel a special bond with. These are beautiful images, Mark. The 1st one looks like graceful bodies reaching up into the field of color.
very interesting way to slice up the number of trees… living down here in the south we seem to have way way over the standard 61 trees/person
And yet, there used to be so many MORE trees, even!
BTW, I have hugged far more than my 61 trees. I’m sure of that. I’ve spoken to some, as well. They are wonderful companions.
Thank you Diane. I can relate, I think many of us have that particular tree we know.
Scott, I know the feeling. In some areas it does seem like there should be a lot more, but then I think of places like New York City, Los Angeles, Shanghai, etc.
Lana – thank you for your comments.
Hi,
My name is Lara Glew. I’ve just visited your site and I was wondering if you’d be interested in exchanging links with my website. I can offer you a home page link back from my Recycling website which would be (http://www.ekamo.org/) Page Rank 2
Your link will be placed here:
http://www.ekamo.org/ PR2 (It`s a recycling website)
As mentioned, your link would be placed on the site home page, not on any “links” pages which may be buried in the site somewhere.
If you are interested please add the following information to your website and kindly let me know when it ´s ready and I will do the same for you in less than 24 hours, otherwise you can delete my link from your site.
TITLE: Recycling
URL: http://www.snaffleup.co.uk
DESCRIPTION: SnaffleUp The recycling web site designed to keep useful items out of landfill.
Or you can use the following html code:
Recycling Site – SnaffleUp The recycling web site designed to keep useful items out of landfill.
I hope you have a nice day and thank you for your time,
Lara Glew
lara.glew@lara-glew.com
Hi Mark – wonderful photos -as always.
Your statistics are quite interesting. And at first they do not sound so bad as always felt but in fact it very much depends on the sort of trees which appear in this number. Tree as we all know does not equal tree and when it comes to the ecosystem we are all in deep trouble because of the corelations to other important facts between original flora and fauna. The palms in the warm areas of this planet, especially in “civilized” areas have hardly any influence on the ecosystem at all f.e. because they do neither produce much oxygen nor do they filter polluted air. Btw – regarding the oxygen production the trees are overestimated anyway because the larger part comes from the underwater plants which is even more important to care for but what many people do not know!
Nevertheless – I am an absolute tree hugger and nothing hurts me more than when I hear the noise of a chainsaw…
This post hit hard for me. One of the things I will miss the most about the home I left behind a few months ago is the ash tree in our yard. For twenty years I had hugged that tree and I felt as though I were abandoning a faithful friend. There are new-to-me trees in this valley and I expect to hug them frequently, but a twenty-year relationship is impossible to replace. The phrase “large guardians” is perfect.
A ratio of 61:1 might sounds much initally – but maybe we should also acknowledge, that there are a few other animals inhabiting this nice blue mudball, who are depending on healthy tree populations. I wonder how many of those trees grow in at least somewhat natural ecosystems – and not in tree farms for industrial wood production. Maybe 5%?
Beautiful photos – they certainly pay respect to those fabulous creatures.