What Is a “Monoculture” Anyway?

Biodiversity is important. So is having a common language to discuss it.

Pine Plantation in Australia. Photo credit: Micah Boerma on Pexels.

Do we regularly grow “monoculture plantations” in Canada? If one defines “monoculture” as “a forest (or farm) growing a single crop species,” most Canadian foresters would probably say “no.” After we harvest our forests, we try to regrow the variety of species that were already there, using a mix of planted and natural regeneration.

However, anyone reading a newspaper lately might get a different idea. Here are just a few op-ed statements I have come across recently:

• “…Another management practice is to replace naturally regenerated mixed forests with monoculture plantation forests.” (Bernhard H.J. Juurlink, Victoria Times Colonist)

• “…environmentally damaging forestry practices of… monoculture reforestation with modified, nursery seedlings.” (Taryn Skalbania, Prince George Citizen)

• “…the 90 per cent of forests in B.C. that have been converted into monoculture tree plantations.” (Vic Brice, Nanaimo News Bulletin)

Although it poorly describes Canadian forestry, “monoculture plantations” is an idea that seems to have stuck. Why is it so prevalent, and should the forest industry be concerned?

Repetition Guides the Public Narrative

In his recent Substack article “Repetition is Important,” science writer Bob Lalasz expresses his frustration over another semi-scientific idea: the widespread acceptance of the popular-yet-inaccurate “6^th mass extinction” concept. While human-caused extinctions are indeed occurring, calling our current situation on earth a “mass extinction” (an event that wipes out the majority of the world’s species), in his words, “possesses a distinct barnyard odor.”

If the “6^th mass extinction” concept is scientifically flawed, why has it become so broadly trusted? Mr. Lalasz believes repetition is the key. As humans, we typically don’t even notice a new idea until we have heard it several times. Then, when we continue hearing it, the information becomes easier for our brains to process, and the idea begins to feel true.

Like the “6^th mass extinction” concept, the idea that current forest practices are replacing natural forests with monoculture plantations has become well accepted. To a lot of people, it just feels right.

Digging Deeper Into the Public’s Concern Over “Monocultures”

The “monoculture plantations” narrative has been around for several decades. In the mid-1990s, I remember my forest ecology professor, Hamish Kimmins, forcefully stressing that contrary to the assertions of noted environmental journalist, David Suzuki, BC forest policy did NOT aim to create monocultures. Indeed, nature itself was just as likely to create monocultures as was human-lead forestry. For example, seeds blowing in from a single dominant tree remaining after a fire could restock a large area. A white paper study by the BC government in 1992 backs up Dr. Kimmins’ arguments: tree species diversity was not changing after logging.

The monoculture controversy re-emerged in the mid-2000s, as the mountain pine beetle epidemic was peaking in the BC Interior. Many of the hardest-hit forests were those that were dominated by a single species: lodgepole pine. Having a single dominant species on the landscape, even if this was a natural phenomenon, clearly contributed to the scale of the pandemic. In 2008, the BC government carried out a careful follow-up to their 1992 study on monocultures. It found that, in 16 of the province’s 37 Timber Supply Areas, the prevalence of monocultures¹ had increased by 6% or more on stands harvested after 1987. The report hence recommended provincial reforestation objectives and strategies be updated and monitored.

Monocultures have come back into the narrative in the last few years. I believe this is for two reasons:

1. Recent severe wildfire seasons have highlighted the need to reduce wildfire risk on a landscape level. After a century of wildfire suppression, Canada’s (including BC’s) forests are older, have greater fuel loading, and have fewer fire-resistant early seral species such as aspen. In this context, the term “monocultures” has been used to signify forests that contain softwoods but no hardwoods.

2. Pressure is increasing to preserve old growth forests in BC from logging. Old growth forests, which are uneven-aged and structurally diverse, look very different from the even-aged stands that are established following clearcutting. While most second growth stands aren’t actually monocultures, the term “monoculture” does evoke the sense of sameness characterized by dense, young second growth. In other words, they feel like monocultures.

In sum, while the public may not always be scientifically accurate in their use of the term “monoculture,” they frequently use it to express their broader concerns over biodiversity.

Dealing With Divergent Definitions

To foresters who devote their careers to reforestation and sustainability, the accusations of “monoculture plantations” grate like nails on a chalkboard. This makes it a lot harder to empathize with the citizens who write concerned (yet not entirely accurate) letters to the editor.

Unfortunately, the use (or misuse) of scientific forestry terms like “monoculture” is probably not going away. Climate change, forest fires, flood risk, biodiversity loss, herbicide use, and ugly-looking second growth have all contributed to a deluge of environmental angst, and “monoculture” sums it all up neatly.

Contrasting definitions make it difficult to discuss issues. Adding layers of emotion makes communication even more challenging. Does this mean stakeholders should stop talking to one another? No, but it does mean that we need to listen carefully, in order to recognize when we’re not speaking the same language. Then, we need to identify specific issues to work on. For example, should we reintroduce more hardwoods on the landscape, in order to mitigate fire risk?

From an industry perspective, it also means that we need to tell our own stories, and repeat them often. Bob Lalasz points out that scientific knowledge often changes, and the public narrative about this science sometimes lags behind. Forest practices also change, and it takes time for the public to notice, understand, and acknowledge such changes when they occur. For this to happen, frequent, patient communication is essential.

---

1. Defined in the report as stands in which at least 81% of the trees were a single species. Therefore, some of the forests counted as monocultures may have a few stray stems of different species.