Thanks for the comments on my previous post about forests and water. Forest hydrology is a complex issue and I hope that the paper I refer to in that post captures some of the complexity, variation and local specificity. There has been a lot of research done on some of these issues and I urge those interested in the debate to follow up some of the key references cited in the paper. And here is an image to reflect on when browsing through the literature.
Are forests really such a magical source of water or are those arboreal torrents a product of (internationally prevalent) wishful thinking?
4 responses so far ↓
1 John Francis Lee // Apr 13, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Are you anti-forest? I think you’d say you are trying to direct our attention to the demand side of hydrology and the politics of what to spend the water on rather than on how to “create” more. But you seem unable to resist slamming the forests. Damn useless things are they? Ought to be wiped out? Certainly not rejuvenated!?
2 Bystander // Apr 13, 2007 at 4:57 pm
The second half of the text, if taken literally, can be interpreted to mean “return clear water to the Mae Sa”. The message then would be that forest cover reduce soil erosion. I don’t think that is a controversial point.
Anyway, I don’t think you have enough data in your paper to draw any scientifically robust conclusion really. With the very sparse data you have, I don’t think a real card-carrying hydrologist would be so bold as to question that there is something amiss in the reasoning faculty of those who disagree with him.
I understand that to do this kind of study you need a very thorough, extensive, and expensive experiment. I don’t expect that to happen very soon in Thailand. For example, to me the ET argument is really a hand-waving argument. Looking into your references, looks like these numbers all come from simulation. Well, you will be well advised to take it with a grain of salt. There are tons of assumptions hidden under the rug, I’m sure. I’ll buy it if somebody can do, say, a real measurement with isotopic tracer like Oxygen 18, for exampe.
Anyway, sometimes people arrive at the right conclusion even with a ‘wrong’ way of thinking. And just as many times people arrive at the wrong conclusion even with the ‘right’ way of thinking.
The royal family may go about preserving the forest for all the wrong reasons, but I must say I’m quite happy with that.
3 Pig Latin // Apr 14, 2007 at 12:13 am
As long as the focus of public debate is on
water supply, the regulatory focus will be on those resident in the forested upland areas that are seen as being crucial in securing downstream flows.
This reminds me of the present situation with the Murray.. (Infact it reads like the diversion debate between Malcolm Turnbull and the States at the moment.. haha)
Probably it’s an ill-informed idea, but there ought to be plenty of data available regarding the removal of mangroves in SA along the Murray and water quality..? Possibly its not upstream enough for a good comparison, but then that also could be do to with irresponsible NSW & QLD farmers!
4 New Mandala » Mekong reflections // May 1, 2007 at 2:50 pm
[...] management is a sensitive issue, as some recent discussions on New Mandala have indicated. This is especially the case in relation to the [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.