Another article on Miyawaki, mostly positive despite the clickbait title. Has some pics and more of the history behind the method. Summary below:
-
Miyawaki forests are a technique pioneered in Japan that aims to rapidly regenerate diverse, multilayered native woodlands.
-
The method involves densely planting native species to recreate complex natural forests in a shortened timespan. Miyawaki forests have spread globally as a restoration technique.
-
Supporters praise the forests’ ability to quickly sequester carbon, boost biodiversity, and revitalize degraded land. Critics argue they lack long-term viability if not properly maintained.
-
Concerns include reliance on irrigation, use of non-local species, and focus on speed over ecosystem function. More research is needed on if Miyawaki forests provide ecological benefits akin to natural regeneration.
-
While Miyawaki forests show some promise for urban areas, some experts recommend approaches that work with natural succession and site conditions over the long term.
This is pretty similar to revgetation methods used in mining in some regards, but the intensity is super high, which is the point. I would love to trial this.
One thing that I’ve seen planned that was cool, was creating veg islands of more intensely planted woody spp, with the rest of the areas seeded to mimic the parkland like ecosystem in the area. Hasn’t been done yet but I would be interested to see what happens
It’s high resource if you follow the technique to the letter so limiting the amount of resource with islands of vegetation is much more viable over the mass scale. It did state in the article that the method changed over the years to add shrubs and lower layers because those seeds don’t move as far, the original must have been tree heavy.
My technique I use personally is more forestry or Syntropic based, I thin to species over time, selecting on how it’s growing compared to others/how long it lives for/which strata it’s part of etc. More hands on than fully hands off.
A modified Miyawaki in a Syntropic row system utilising arboricultural and foresty techniques for biomass creation and canopy selection basically. Having humid Summers means mulch is a plus and cycles quickly.
We are dry AF up my way. About 450 mm of precip a year. We also have 6-8 months of winter, so things take a lot longer. The plus side is that soils stockpiles are likely inert in terms of changes.
Not familiar with syntropic rows but I’ll read up.
How do you thin them out?
I wrote a little here. You can see a photo I stole from an article.
https://aussie.zone/post/215888
Thinning is a number of things. Brutalising through pollard or lopping, ringbark, cutting low once canopy established which tends to finish off the eoicormic/coppice shoots.
I’ve been curious about this method which has become a trend in urban forestry circles in the US recently. It’s an interesting idea but I’d be curious to see some successful examples from arid climates before implementing it in my area. My experience is that overly dense plantings of trees in arid or semi-arid areas will increase water needs, lead to sickly plants, and ultimately create an overly dense forest that is highly flammable.
With wildfire and drought risks increasing, a healthy ecosystem in the coming century may mean fewer, larger trees with more grass or shrubs between them.
If you manage to get round to the vids I linked elsewhere, they do cross the fact that species selection and grouping is key. What you’ve detailed there is also in the rebuttal to Miyawaki. It could still be a “Miyawaki” if you have trees 10m apart and the rest planted with shrubs and grasses, just not in the tropical sense that most of the articles seem to focus on (tree heavy). Syntropic is also a tropical method that has been done temperate and arid, it just comes down to copying the ecological niche you’re sticking it in to.
This is relatively new to me, so thank you for posting about it. I did want to remark a couple things in reply to what you posted:
- The article says that the Miyawaki method specifies that it uses native species, so it would seem that any use of non-native species is the “fault” of whoever is choosing the plants. That said, as you noted, this method doesn’t quite seem to address site-specific conditions, such as soil types and water availability.
- The article also mentions that these gardens (like the article, I find that I hesitate to call them “forests” for various reasons, the biggest being their small size) require “zero maintenance after planting”, which I personally doubt (at the very least it should require some watering to get the plants situated), but if it’s a low-maintenance thing using native species correctly chosen to fit the site, then there shouldn’t be much reliance on irrigation.
Of course these points are in addition to the concerns over exactly what the broader ecosystem benefits of such an approach are. For example, the biodiversity profile of soil microbes and fungi – which (far as I know) aren’t intentionally chosen in this method as it currently stands – might be different between a site that’s naturally regenerated and a site in the same local biome that’s been quick-reforested this way. And there’s also open questions about how useful such spaces are to animals. Mind you, I’m not saying that the answers to these questions are negative – they may very well be positive. But they’re just potential points of future research. (Also, use by animals might be site-dependent, so if this method proves to be useful in this way it may be a decent method for re-creating wildlife corridors.)
Still, this method seems effective in delivering at least some ecosystem services, namely carbon sequestration, canopy shade, and various other benefits of simply having a stand of trees around. So it’s not useless. And given its relative “disconnection” from natural regeneration, it might be more useful for small-scale “urban afforestation” – when you wanna just get a stand of trees planted and make their own at least somewhat self-maintaining mini-ecosystem, especially on land that’s likely never gonna be allowed to undergo a natural succession process (at least not with native plants), such as small spaces in cities and suburbs. For example, here in south Florida there’s a matrix of dry land and water bodies (west of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge) artificially created from what was once part of the Everglades. There is no truly native upland habitat here, but…what can we humans do with it now that we’ve built houses and roads and stuff on it? If we plonk down a forest here, it’s not like it’s going back to how the marshland it used to be, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t plonk down a forest (with appropriate species choices, of course).
Speaking of wetlands, I’m also curious whether such an approach can be adapted to wetland restoration. From what I understand, processes like peat buildup are very slow, but are there ways to accelerate this with minimal ecosystem disruption, maybe even if restricted to artifically-created wetland systems?
This is a thoughtful post that I wish I could address. I’m currently out in field plus that’s beyond my knowledge in parts.
The Afforestt site has a lot more technical information, including in video form that will answer some of your thoughts. The methodology link has the links for videos. The video links will address some of the layouts, species selection, and irrigation.
