Assisted migration of redwoods to Washington state: good or bad idea?
Hello fellow tree huggers,
Question: if I have a plot of land in the Western Washington Cascades, should I plant redwoods and/or sequoias on it on not? I would do this in addition to the obvious douglas firs, western red cedars, western hemlocks and various appropriate ground shrubs/ferns.
I can see a lot of articles about "assisted migration", many of which reference redwoods, but also all of which state that the idea is controversial. The idea is that Northern California is becoming less habitable for these trees, and Washington and BC become more like how California used to be, so the redwood forest will naturally migrate northwards. However, climate change is happening too fast for a slow-moving forest to realistically keep up.
The proponents argue that it's a way to preserve an important species, especially one which is a great carbon sink.
The doubters argue that some species of plants wouldn't survive the process, or could bring pests, or at least be susceptible them.
I can't tell if those drawbacks really pertain to redwoods/sequoias in Washington though. There are hundreds of them around the Seattle area that are doing just fine, more than a hundred years after residents planted them.
Wow, thanks for the thorough reply! I'll try to respond to your questions and also add more context...
You've got access to the land for regeneration?
Yes, I own the land.
will you be provenancing them from distance locales of their range?
Honestly haven't thought about this yet, but I figure I'll just go to the nearest nursery!
will you be planting enough of them so that they become a Redwood forest ‘ecotype’ or will they be oddities in your forest, just poking their head out here and there?
Just oddities, mixed together with the endemic species. I should say the lot is only a half acre, so it's really not a forest by any stretch. It's just a little chunk of land I want to care for responsibly. It is right on the edge of the Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest though, so I want to be mindful of what might spread into the "real" forest.
If you are regenerating a bare paddock that isn’t attached to any native areas
The lot is currently in a pretty unnatural state. There are a few western red cedars and native shrubs/ferns, but also a big blackberry patch, lots of English ivy, and a few other species I haven't identified yet. To make things worse, most of those foreign invasives are on a steep hillside that seems like a big erosion risk.
The surrounding forest is a mix. Some of it is nice, old douglas firs, hemlocks, cedars etc with the native undergrowth, and some of it is like mine - blackberries and ivy etc.
final restoration goal
I mainly just want to bring this land back to a mostly natural state so it functions (and feels) like a healthy PNW forest. I also want to put a few fast-growing big trees on the hillside to prevent erosion (this was what got me thinking about redwoods/sequoias). Ideally, the small piece of forest I do have the privilege to steward will be able to help the surrounding area regenerate to how it belongs as well. I'm trying to think ahead 100 years to how the climate will be, and start planting for that now.
Conclusion
This probably won't be a big deal in the grand scheme of the forest anyway, since I have such a small space to work with. I might just do it!
Haha yeah those invasives are gonna be a few years of work. Any tips for killing them without creating a bigger erosion problem? I was thinking I’d start by just ripping out little circular clearings and plant some medium sized things in the space left behind, then wait a year or two to really go hard on the rest of it, so there’s never any time without roots holding everything together.
Yeah Ive read a bit about how climate change will impact the native plants. I think western red cedar is in the most danger but it’s gonna be a while before they really can’t handle it.