| Ecologics
and Aesthetics |
Edward
Frank |
| Jan
28, 2007 18:45 PST |
Ecologics
and Aesthetics
We have been discussion aspects of aesthetics and ecology with
respect to trying to create a set of numerical guidelines for
evaluating these criteria. The goal would be to develop a usable
methodology for evaluating the significance of a particular site
when being considered for preservation or utilization. In My initial
post I wrote: What is it about a particular tree, grove, or
forest that tells you that this is a special place? What is it
that touches you in some way on an emotional, spiritual, or
aesthetic level? Is it different for individual trees as opposed
to a section of a forest? If so what are the differences? .I
would like to see ENTS develop a listing of aesthetic criteria
as a method of characterizing sites. What is it about a
particular site that moves us in some emotional way? Are we
moved by the presence of large trees, small dwarfed and gnarled
trees that have fought against the weather, the smell of
sassafras, the crinkle of leaves in the autumn? ..First the
question of what specific characteristics affect us. I can see
items that we can see or touch or otherwise interact with our
senses, things or events that impact us positively on a
emotional level, and things that require some intellectual
participation - knowing this 8 inch diameter tree is really 250
years old, might be an example. A nice write-up of these
qualities would be one product of the exercise. .Could these
aesthetic criteria be given some sort of a numerical value
reflecting their importance in the impact of the forest, grove,
or even individual trees? .Some of the criteria will be mutually
exclusive, and no site will have all of the characteristics. So
the ranking could be based on the sum of highest of twenty
values for a site. Perhaps the group considering the question
will come up with a better idea of what to do.
Others, in particular T. J. Sullivan argued that the concepts of
biology and ecology should be wrapped together with the aesthetics
in any guidelines. I must agree the two concepts must be
considered together and they are deeply intertwined.
Tim Sullivan wrote:
"I love the idea of wrapping the concepts of "ecologics"
and aesthetics together. I believe that Ed and Gary's goals
overlap in many ways and converge to cover my concerns for
looking at forests in a much more holistic manner. Science is
often a way of quantifying what we already, at least partially,
understand. Intuitive feelings are often just understandings
that we have not yet figured out how to scientifically measure.
Combining the understandings of science with the intuitive
feelings of folks who spend significant time in the forest could
create a more encompassing, progressive and effective means of
forest preservation and management. "
Many members of the public have never had an oppurtunity to
observe an relatively undisturbed forest and do not really have
a good appreciation for the complex ecologies involved. Some are
influenced by the neatness of open park-like environments and
may be uncomfortable with the messy systems of a comparatively
undisturbed ecosystem. A goal of the project should be to define
our aesthetic criteria as those informed by ecologic knowledge
of the sytems. In effect what is good ecologically is also
described as aesthetically appealing. This concept of an
ecologic aesthetic is discussed in the writings of many
conservationists. The work of Aldo Leopold, author of "A
Sand County Almanac" among others, champions this concept.
It must be a keystone to any guidelines we develop.
Tim Sullivan writes: " I don't think we should be
shooting for a set of aesthetic criteria that the general public
can agree upon. Most people have been so conditioned to the look
of increasingly unhealthy forests that they have no idea of just
how beautiful a healthy forest can be. We should work to develop
a set of categories that will help the public better see the
beauty of a healthy, functioning forest. This system should also
give land managers some guidelines on how to manage forests to
produce a healthy forest aesthetic as well as provide
conservation groups with a way of better prioritizing."
-----------------------------------
In a series of past posts I listed the criteria used for a
couple of examples of formulas used to evaluate different
forests. These included the High Conservation Value Forest
Definition and the formula used to select Forest Reserves in
Massachusetts. Tim Sullivan proposed a set of criteria he felt
were of importance in the evaluations. I want to address these
one at a time:High Conservation Value Forests: There are six
criteria listed, only the first three are directly applicable to
our situation
a.. HCV1. Forest areas containing globally, regionally or
nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values
(e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia). For example, the
presence of several globally threatened bird species within a
Kenyan montane forest.
b.. HCV2. Forest areas containing globally, regionally or
nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained
within, or containing the management unit, where viable
populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist
in natural patterns of
distribution and abundance. For example, a large tract of
Mesoamerican lowland rainforest with healthy populations of
jaguars, tapirs, harpy eagles and caiman as well as most smaller
species.
c.. HCV3. Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened
or endangered ecosystems. For example, patches of a regionally
rare type of freshwater swamp forest in an Australian coastal
district.
-------------------------------------------------
The first category HCV1 says "significant concetrations of
biodiversity values", which really seems to be smoke and
whistles. The key concept here is the presence of endemism,
endangered species, and refugia. Endemism refers to species fund
nowhere else but this particular site or area - certainly
worthwhile. Endangered species - they are refering to globally
threatened species. In our criteria we should consider
nationally and regionally threatened species as well as globally
threatened ones. refugia (singular: refugium) refer to locations
of isolated or relict populations of once widespread animal or
plant species. This seems to be a viable reason
for conserving a particular area.
The second category HCV2 really deals with large scale
undisturbed forest, which aren't really applicable, at least in
the eastern United States. Large scale actions can be taken for
example the Southern Rivers Conservation Project of the Virginia
Nature Conservancy http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/virginia/press/press2628.html
The Nature Conservancy in Virginia completed a conservation deal
with International Paper that protects 20,830 acres of
forestland in Sussex, Surry, Isle of Wight and Southampton
counties in Virginia. Gov. Timothy Kaine announced the closing
of the Virginia conservation deal Monday evening at the
Governor's Natural Resources Leadership Summit in Marion,
Virginia. "Virginia loses more than 20,000 acres of
forestland each year, so it's critical that the public and
private sectors work together to balance the fast-paced growth
in our state with land conservation," Kaine said.
"This deal between The Nature Conservancy and International
Paper is an excellent example of collaborative conservation. My
administration is committed to fostering more public-private
efforts to meet the goals of protecting 400,000 acres by the end
of the decade." The forested tracts in southeast Virginia
are part of the Conservancy's Southern Rivers conservation area,
a top priority for the Conservancy, and home to more than 100
rare plants, animals and natural communities. These forests
contribute to the water quality of the Nottoway, Blackwater and
Meherrin rivers. All three drain into the Albemarle-Pamlico
Sound, the nation's second-largest estuary next to the
Chesapeake Bay. The conservation deal includes the 4,900-acre
Big Woods tract in Sussex County bordering the Conservancy's
Piney Grove Preserve, home to the state's rarest bird-the red
cockaded woodpecker.
The third category HCV3 are forest areas that are in or contain
rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. Again this seems to
be a viable criteria for our purposes.
-----------------------------------------
Massachusetts Forest Reserve Evaluation Criteria James DiMaio
writes: We went through a process of expert choices ranking each
criteria against one another. We had experts ecologists,
biologist, scientist, leaders in forestry (about 15-20 folks
serve on the panel.) We also used very sophisticated GIS
information for each candidate forest reserve after the
weighting was developed. http://www.mass.gov/envir/forest/pdf/whatare_forestreserves.pdf
Criteria Weight
Acreage of Old Growth . .268
Acreage of Valley Bottom .188
% Protected Land in Surrounding area .115
% 1830s Forest .114
Number of Viable Rare Communities .108
% BioMap Ambystomid Habitat .047
% Riparian and Wetland Forest .035
% Forest Interior .025
Acreage of Largest Interior Forest .025
% Living Waters Critical Supporting Watershed .023
Patch reserves will typically be relatively small (tens or
hundreds of acres) and will be defined by the extent of the
unique resources (rare species, steep slopes, etc.) intended for
conservation. Matrix reserves size should be based on the
expected extent of natural disturbance events. EOEA supports
having a limited number of large reserves of 5,000± acres that
represent the diversity of forest ecosystems that occur in
Massachusetts. Potential matrix reserve sites would represent
the diversity of forest ecosystems occurring within the
relatively un-fragmented forest landscapes remaining in
Massachusetts.
-----------------------------------
The more I look at these criteria and weighting, the more I
wonder what this committee of 15 to 20 people were doing. The
first criteria is acerage of old growth. That seems reasonable,
but then they also have the criteria % of 1830 forest - isn't
that about the same thing? I looked to find a definition of old
growth for Massachusetts to see what they were defining as old
growth. I found one definition in an amendment to the original
bill authorizing the forest reserves - I don't know if it was
adopted or not. The second was from another source. Both are
essentially the same definition.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht01/ht01381.htm
Petition to amend: "Old growth forest", an area of
contiguous forest that: (1) shows no evidence of significant
human, post-European disturbance that originated on site; (2)
has a significant component of older trees that are greater than
50 percent of the maximum longevity for the particular species;
(3) is at least five acres in size; and (4) has either: (i) the
capacity for self-perpetuation; or (ii) the characteristics of a
forest which are indicative of an old growth forest and which
otherwise meets the criteria established by regulations of the
secretary. Modification of this definition may be made by
regulation to incorporate future scientific advances in the
understanding of old growth forests.
SECOND EXPERT MEETING ON HARMONIZING FOREST-RELATED DEFINITIONS
FOR USE BY VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4171E/Y4171E34.htm
11. (USA-Massachusetts) - An area of contiguous forest that (1)
shows no evidence of significant human, post-European
disturbance that originated on site, (2) has a significant
component of older trees that are greater than fifty percent of
the maximum longevity for that particular species, (3) is at
least five acres in size, and (4) has the capacity for
self-perpetuation, or (5) has the characteristics of a forest
which, when found in combination together, are indicative of an
old growth forest and which otherwise meets the criteria
established by regulation by the Secretary. http://www.massforesters.org/old.htm
I have a problem with this definition in some aspects it says
"no evidence of significant human, post-European disturbance" What
is significant or not? No evidence seem overly strict as
virtually all forests in the eastern US have been disturbed to
some degree. Limited would be better. It says "a
significant component of trees that are greater than fifty
percent of the maximum longevity for that particular
species" Again this means if we find an older specimen of a
species, then some trees will no longer be old enough to be old
growth. It is flawed on another level when you consider how few
tree species there are for which we have a realistic maximum age
in the eastern United States. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~adk/oldlisteast/ It
is unreasonable that the maximum age of the species be used. The
typical life span of a tree species is not likely to be directly
proportional to the maximum age for the species, so why should
maximum age be used in the definition?
Acreage of valley bottom - Why is valley bottom acreage
important?
% of protected land in surrounding area - this is reasonable
because it deals with how much interconectivity there is between
the proposed reserve and surrounding protected areas. However I
can't find any definition of what the "surrounding
area" means or what they mean by protected land.
Number of viable rare communities - again an excellent criteria
% BioMap Ambystomid Habitat - this is a type of salamander and
it is being used as a indicator species for the quality of the
habitat. Again a viable idea
% Riparian and Wetland Forest - I suppose there was some reason
for focusing on these particular forest types, but I am not sure
what it might be.
% Forest Interior - a good concept
Acreage of Largest Interior Forest - isn't this similar to the
above listing of % forest interior?
% Living Waters Critical Supporting Watershed - sounds good, but
I am not sure what it means or how it is measured.
If you look at the weighting of the criteria: 3 are acreages, 1
is a number, and 6 are percentages. If you would have five acres
of old growth, that would by itself overwhelm the total of all
of the percentage criteria effectively making them meaningless.
Why were they even included then? The only values that make any
difference in the weighting are acreage of old growth, acreage
of valley bottom, and number of viable rare communities. The
acreage of interior forest are weighted as 0.025 and will not
affect the total significantly.
In conclusion, in my opinion there were some good ideas in the
list, but the weighting system was not implemented well.
----------------------------------------------
Tim Sullivan writes: "We should work to
develop a set of categories that will help the public better see
the beauty of a healthy, functioning forest. This system should
also give land managers some guidelines on how to manage forests
to produce a healthy forest aesthetic as well as provide
conservation groups with a way of better prioritizing their
preservation efforts. Here are a few of the categories I have
thought of so far:
a.. Unique habitat types
b.. Old growth stands
c.. Multi age class forests
d.. Rare species
e.. Connectivity
f.. Forest type representation
g.. Forest size
h.. Wildlife habitat
Each of these categories should have a broad definition of how
to evaluate it. Then perhaps a rating system could be developed
that would take into account several factors in each category.
These factors should include items that rate the importance of a
specific category to the location in which the forest is found (i.e
does this forest represent a type that is under represented in
the local area or rare in the region?, etc.). Not all the
categories should be weighted equally. It would be up to local
land managers and conservation groups to decide which categories
are most important to the forests they are looking at. You may
notice that I did not include biodiversity as a category. There
are two reasons for this. First, I think many of the categories
we would develop will collectively cover the concept of
biodiversity and how that diversity is aesthetically appealing
to us and good for forest health. More importantly I am
beginning to see the concept of biodiversity being abused by
land managers."
--------------------------------------
Tim has come up with some good ideas. I would like to encourage
others to post their own lists or ideas on the matter. It is the
time for brainstorming. Brainstorm on. |
| Forest
Aesthetics |
Edward
Frank |
| Jan
31, 2007 20:38 PST |
ENTS,
As we continue in this quest to look at forest aesthetics, I
compiled this list of characteristics and phrases from our
discussions so far. I present them in no order aside from when
they appeared. Some I feel are good, some I might disagree,
other are the beginning kernals of an idea. Read them over and
add to my list. Add comments.
a.. large trees
b.. dwarfed and gnarled trees
c.. smell of sassafras
d.. crinkle of leaves in the autumn
e.. beauty, serenity and simplicity
f.. place for relaxation and contemplation
g.. forests and land before man had changed them
h.. our dreams of magnificent forests
i.. look and feel of antiquity
j.. park-like appearance
k.. trees that dwarf what one ordinarily sees
l.. interplay of symmetry with asymmetry
m.. When I was younger my idea of what made a forest beautiful
was different than today. The more I learned about forests, from
the trees to the streams that flow through them tothe individual
insects that inhabit those forest streams, the more my ideas
about the forest and what made it beautiful changed.
n.. beautiful bunch of yellow lady slippers
o.. nest of a pair of pileated woodpeckers
p.. biological diversity
q.. awe inspiring scenery
r.. best examples of each type of forest ecosystem
s.. unique forests that are not necessarily spectacular
t.. old growth fragments
u.. unusual assemblages of species
v.. unusual ecosystems
w.. rarity of forest type
x.. how a segment of
y.. forest compares to surrounding forests
z.. spiritual resource as we commune with nature
aa.. something to be admired and explored
ab.. something with an emotional impact
ac.. element of mystery felt when in a forest
ad.. different spatial and temporal scales that we cannot easily
grasp
ae.. magical pockets of stunted, undisturbed forest
af.. connectivity is an important aesthetic component
ag.. plenty of magic to be found in the details
ah.. forests judges on what they may become in the future
ai.. one "family" of huge white pines
aj.. aesthetics, diversity, vigor and resilience are all words
that work well together
ak.. every forested place I can remember from my youth as either
impressive or especially aesthetic most are significantly
changed...not by logging but by time
al.. Intuitive feelings are often just understandings that we
have not yet figured out how to scientifically measure
am.. folks are used to the third/fourth growth unmanaged forests
of today, and may find themmore aesthetic than the woods they
replaced
an.. you pass through earlier seral stages into later
successions, the older more undisturbed stands will often have
more 'universal' appeal
ao.. much of the aesthetic appeal is derived from the associated
flora of a woodland
ap.. differentiated color schemes (beech, birch, pines, etc.)
aq.. large trees are usually a plus
ar.. Vermont woodlands with their ground layer of herbs and
ferns and abundance of hemlock and sugar maple can often be very
attractive with only modest sized trees
as.. If a body of water is present, the aesthetic effect can be
multiplied
at.. gestalt effect of water, sky, mountain, and forest
au.. when I think of forests it is all the other inhabitants
that peak my imagination and enhance my sense of wonder. Now, in
some ways, the trees are just the frames through which I see
everything else
av.. sense of wonder
aw.. illusive feeling of mystery
ax.. Magic Maple: superb symmetry, significant height and size
for the species, location, etc., the works. It is a picture of
health. It carries itself with pride
ay.. place of great power
az.. luxuriance that lies deep
ba.. feeling of mystery to the woodlands - an attribute of fog
or cloud-enshrouded forests.
bb.. trail sounds: the deflection and absorption of human sound
by leaves, stems, and the mist is a merciful gift of forest gods
bc.. centuries-old black gum with alligator bark
bd.. Imagination: the chatter of surface consciousness is
hushed, in such places, one's deeper imagination takes over and
fantasizing becomes the natural process of a healthy mind
be.. great poplar looked wise, the forest's voice of experience
with it's hulking form
bf.. The tree had a hollow side, home to many small mammals,
including interior forest bats, and countless insects. High
above, this old monarch of the cove played host to vocal, avian
visitors. Neo-tropical migratory songbirds sat on its huge
extended limbs and announced the boundaries of their
territories. We could see ferns and mosses and even
saplings growing in the forks of its branches fully 90 feet
above the forest floor. The old tuliptree was literally a hotel
in the forest, a place of rest for those passing through, and a
permanent abode for many a local critter.
bg.. hidden spot
bh.. psychic pathway that forms part of the connections shared
by all living things
bi.. aesthetic appreciation should be informed by ecological
knowledge
bj.. deeper beauty, informed by meaning
bk.. subtle, experiential, and dynamic qualities that often
characterize forest ecosystems of high biological integrity
bl.. dynamic nature of healthy ecosystems
bm.. open look and species uniformity of large old growth
forests
bn.. chaos of naturally disturbed forest patches
bo.. pockets of unique species scattered in micro habitats
bp.. define the species' best expression
bq.. timeless expressions of nature's beauty
br.. inviting sound of rushing the waters
bs.. long lines and smooth curves carry our eyes upward along
her trunk and into her out-swept limbs
bt.. pleasing flow to each of her branches. The contours have
the power to sooth us.
bu.. the space that she claims as her own
bv.. near physical perfection for her species
bw.. Stand near me and sense my gentle power
bx.. beauty is part of aesthetics
by.. Magic Maple communicates clearly that her species belongs
in the woodlands of New England.
bz.. combination of size and symmetry, including bark symmetry,
with ample viewing opportunity that elicited ideas of perfection
Edward Frank
|
| Re:
Forest Aesthetics |
Steve
Galehouse |
| Feb
01, 2007 18:17 PST |
Ed-
I think the aesthetic effect of a forest depends to a great
extent on
the vantage point of the observer--an expanse of forest seen
across a
wide valley or on a distant mountain side elicits a sense of
grandeur
and awe; the same forest seen from within, looking
"out" and up, elicits
a sense of wonder and intimacy--both sensations accurate and
valid, just
different.
Steve Galehouse |
| Re:
Forest Aesthetics |
Holly
Post |
| Feb
02, 2007 02:56 PST |
Hi there: When I am in the forest I have a gut
reaction. A feeling of comfort wraps around me like
my mother's arms. I am not kidding.
|
| Bosai
Aesthetics |
Edward
Frank |
| May
01, 2007 19:54 PDT |
ENTS,
While researching the overall forest aesthetics question I came
across this reference tonight:
Artistic Foundations of Bonsai Design by Andy Rutledge
http://www.andyrutledge.com/book/contents/langofartistry.htm
It is an online book that covers the principles of bonsai
design. Some of the concepts are certainly applicable to forest
aesthetics and the aesthetics of individual trees.
Edward Frank |
|