Earth's Forest Area 9 Percent Greater Than Thought
Satellite survey finds hidden forests all over the world.

Forests in drylands are much more extensive than previously reported and cover a total area similar to that of tropical rainforests or boreal forests, according to a new study published in Science. Researchers discovered these hidden forests by scrutinizing high resolution satellite images covering more than 200,000 half-hectare-sized plots. The survey used ultra–high-resolution Google Earth images with each pixel representing a patch of ground less than a meter wide.
"We show that in 2015, 1327 million hectares of drylands had more than 10% tree-cover, and 1079 million hectares comprised forest," report the researchers. "Our estimate is 40 to 47% higher than previous estimates, corresponding to 467 million hectares of forest that have never been reported before. This increases current estimates of global forest cover by at least 9%."
To the extent that greater forest area helps mitigate environmental problems—soil erosion, declines in biodiversity, water retention issues—this adds to the good news that global deforestation rates are slowing. As the Food and Agricultural Organization reported two years ago: Over the past 25 years forest area has changed from 4.1 billion ha to just under 4 billion ha, a decrease of 3.1 percent. the rate of global forest area change has slowed by more than 50 percent between 1990 and 2015.
If Jesse Ausubel, head of the Human Environment Program at Rockefeller University, is right, humanity is on the cusp of peak farmland with the result that global forest cover could well expand by nearly 400 million hectares by 2060, an area nearly double the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You know what else was more forested than previously thought?
Allison Morrisette?
1980's Madonna?
Earth's Forest Area 9 Percent Greater Than Thought
Satellite survey finds hidden forests all over the world
They probably couldn't find it because of all the trees.
467 million hectares of forest that have never been reported before.
But they were there.
Settled science? No such thing.
NEEDZ MOAR CO2 FOR TREE FOOD.
"Our estimate is 40 to 47% higher than previous estimates..."
They found the Secret Woods.
Secret Wood
Something something nickname...
Everyone knows the forests were wiped out by the year 2000.
#Science
We were supposed to have already reached peak farmland decades ago. Never trust an estimate of 'peak' anything.
We were supposed to have already reached peak farmland decades ago.
Cite?
The only people I know of who've talked about peak farmland prior to about 2005-2015 include some manner of catastrophic collapse of humanity (I suppose some Gaia worshippers may've advanced the notion but I doubt the veracity of their claims).
The notion that technology is and will increase production per acre isn't new. The idea that the world's population is leveling off is relatively new/recent. The implications of both facts/ideas together is fairly recent.
Not exactly disagreeing that as agriculture frees up land, we'll find other stuff to do with the land (and, possibly even call it agriculture) just that you act like 'peak farming' or 'peak agriculture' is as old as 'peak oil' and it isn't and (AFAIK) doesn't that doesn't seem possible.
I guess maybe I should be more clear. It's been debated for quite a while. It's always seemed distinctly less like AGW-style, Club Of Rome-style, or Cold Fusion-style predictions and more like an (e.g.) acknowledgement of Moore's Law and the leveling off of the human population (with appropriate caveats).
I've never heard a "We'll reach peak farmalnd in 1992." the way the Club Of Rome predicted we'd run out of oil.
"Peak farmland" as used here would be a good thing (producing more food on less land). It's the opposite of what "peak oil" or "peak phosphorous" types preach, since they would cry that we're going to run out of space for farming and we'll all starve. In other words, the "peak farmland" that Ron mentioned would not be reaching the point at which there was no more available farmland on earth but reaching the highest area of land humanity uses for farmland which will reduce because of better agricultural technology.
So in this case, "peak farmland" is actually very believable.
Yeah, it's kind of the opposite of "peak" everything else.
So in this case, "peak farmland" is actually very believable.
And, quite reasonably, allows for (conceptually) multiple peaks.
We might reach peak ag tomorrow but, if gamma rays suddenly make everyone twice as fertile and/or we suddenly find a way to grow nutritionally complete, tasty, and cheap algae, peak ag or farmland would/could be lost and/or entirely redefined.
??????O .._Do you know everybody can make $500 to $600 per day for just easiest work from home. I have made $634 Today and $18623 last month by just doing an easy job online from home. I am vey happy that I have this job now and am able to earn Thousands Dollars online. Every person can join this job now by just click on the link given below., ??????? ?????____BIG.....EARN....MONEY..___???????-
Honest question: Doesn't more CO2 increase plant growth rates and crop yields?
Also, the Earth is getting greener: http://www.popsci.com/new-stud.....ng-greener
Yes. And, factually speaking, the atmosphere must contain greater than ~170ppm of CO2 for plant life to continue on living. Additionally, we are far closer to that minimum than prehistoric norm's before the ice ages.
This fact unfortunately doesn't fit the narrative, thus it is discarded.
(Oh, and plant life stores carbon. Shocking, I know.)
We're getting warmer, rainier, greener, and more productive.
In the 1970s we were worried about the impending end of the interglacial, lack of water, lack of food.
CO2 saves the day!
Earth's Forest Area 9 Percent Greater Than Thought
The benefits of a higher CO2 atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide: it's what plants need.
Plus, it has electrolytes.