|
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 12 2007 8:51 am
From: dbhguru
Lee,
As I read BVP's and Preston's books, and others that relate results
of canopy research in the Pacific Northwest and the Tropics, it
become crystal clear at how pathetically little the schools of
forestry have heretofore known about old growth ecosystems and what
they truly represent. And now, the idea of mimicking or managing for
a few old growth characteristics as a surrogate for the real thing
in order to provide habitat for several extra species of birds
becomes increasingly foolish. In fact down right amateurish. As
researchers have discovered, the number of species that inhabit the
canopies of the great Pacific Coast rainforests is literally
mindboggling. There is not counterpart in younger forests. The plant
communities in the OG canopies may endure for the better part of
1,000 years.
With all due respect to my good friend Don Bertolette, I've never
bought into the old growth definition of Oliver and Larson. In my
view, they see everything from a ground level, timber perspective -
verey, very limited. The true measure of old growth, at least in the
Pacific Coast forests, may well be measured by the existence of a
very wide range of indicator plant and animal communities that
inhabit the crowns of loder trees and make the canopy the richest
zone of life in old growth forests. I will bet the temperate
rainforest and near rainforest areas of the southern Appalachians
have a counterpart. Will Blozan has frequently marveled at the
lichen encrustations of the huge hemlocks he climbs. The counterpart
may be on a much smaller scale, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that
it exists.
Whether there is a counterpart in the old growth forests of the
Northeast, I don't know. I kind of doubt that one exists, but if it
does, I would expect it to exist in the conifers. Anyway, it is
interesting to speculate on why there might or might not be a
counterpart. Any thoughts on the subject?
Bob
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 12 2007 10:34 am
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Bob-
The study of canopies and their associated communities is a 'new
science'...efforts in Washington Oregon and northern California
(names like Jerry Franklin, Bob Van Pelt, Roman Dial, Steve Sillet)
have been underway for several decades, but good science takes
awhile...check out Oregon State and UW forestry/ecology curriculums.
As to Oliver and Larson, I'm not especially in love with them, but I
do agree that the one absolutely essential ingredient in old-growth
ecosystems is time. Were Oliver and Larson being capricious in
selecting the amount of time it takes for the cohort that follows
the generation of dominant trees responding to a major
disturbance...no, I think not.
Is that sufficient time for the epiphytic plant community/upper
canopy ecosystem to establish itself in its own old-growth habit?
I don't know, but it seems like a good place to start...what say the
members of the forum with upper canopy ecosystem knowledge?
I would bet that the Wind River group (Jerry Franklin and others) is
looking closely at this very topic!
-Don
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 12 2007 2:47 pm
From: Lee Frelich
Bob:
There probably isn't an exact counterpart in the northeast--too much
wind,
fire, and species that don't live as long. Nevertheless, hemlock,
white
cedar, and white pine in the northeast might have some canopy
communities
that are more complex than in younger forests, but not quite what
they have
out west.
Lee
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 12 2007 3:44 pm
From: dbhguru
Lee,
BVP points out an interesting fact about shade tolerance that I had
not realized and that is that the shade intolerant pines cannot
orient their needles to receive maximum solar reception, whereas the
shade tolerant firs can. The ability of some conifers to either
protect their needles from too much sun or maximize their exposure
in the dim light of the forest floor is pretty nifty. I wonder why
pines did not develop this neat adaptation.Of course the same thing
could be asked about any pioneer species.
Bob
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 12 2007 4:02 pm
From: Randy Brown
Bob,
I uploaded a close up picture of a lichen encrusted twig I picked up
along the Boogerman trail in the Smokies this spring:
Perhaps not Pacific Northwest grade but still an amazing little
forest
down in there.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: BVP's Great Book
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/c9657775309f4d07?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 13 2007 6:03 am
From: "Jess Riddle"
Hi Randy,
Looks like Platismatia tuckermanii on either end of the twig, and
you
can see some Pseudevernia consocians above your palm. I'm not sure
what the others are, but it looks like they're providing lots of
nice
invertebrate habitat. Both Platismatia and Psuedevernia are common
on
old conifers around the Cataloochee section of the Smokies.
Jess
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 13 2007 11:19 am
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Bob-
After reading your post below, I thought back to the time that David
Kittredge, you, and I went to the Deerfield River Gorge and walked
into an old-growth stand you were familiar with. We talked about
bark characteristics and gnarly branches, and Dave said "You
know, it's like one of the Supreme Court justices said..."I
don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see
it", and Dave went on to say, "I know old-growth when I'm
in it, but I'm not sure exactly what is different when I'm out of
it", and then he challenged us to more fully identify what
'old-growth' was.
That and other considerations I think spurred both of us on, to more
completely define old-growth. Western forest ecologists had a head
start, with the pressure of commercial interests wanting to consume
them (old-growth forests!). Old-growth forests in the East had been
more or less written off, as having already been logged, blown down,
herbivoried, or otherwise disturbed.
Reading your post reminded me of how much effort was applied in
chasing definitions. It was definitely constructive, it drove us all
to further comprehension, but it seemed the closer we got, the less
we could definitively say. Your post below pretty much takes us back
to 'ground zero'...not a bad place to start! It was several years as
I recall, before the medium in which old-growth grows was getting
much investigation...soil microorganisms had to be an 'obligate'
part of the ecosystem equation, as it didn't take much disturbance
of 'ground zero' before the vigor and resilience was affected.
Another consideration was the history (reference conditions) of the
stand/forest...what was the natural disturbance regime, had there
been significant human entries into the ecosystem, whether is was
herbivory imbalance (wildlife consumption outside of natural ranges
of variability), domestic grazing, prior indigenous cultural
practices, selective logging (winter removals of specific market
driven species), or commercially intensive logging.Clearly, in the
East, with several centuries of European settlement and millenia of
prior indigenous cultural occupation, a restrictive, exclusive
definition would preclude what old-growth we walk into and know that
it was different before we walked into it.
There is it seems, enough room for elasticity in the old-growth
definitions. In a biological context, that elasticity in my mind is
the old-growth 'forest health', its 'resilience reserves'...and how
much disturbance it absorbs, yet still rebounds in what we might
call a natural range of variation over time.
Your comments below about the nature of epiphytic plant communities
and that relationship with 'old-growthedness', points out that some
of the most important facets of old-growth forests, are not the
trees themselves, but the communities that their structures permit.
While heterogenous vertical and horizontal structures and species
compositions are big words describing tree relationships, they go
along way towards providing the basis for the biological diversity
that we've come to associate with walking into and out of old-growth
forests. At least one more big word should be in above
sentence...that word would describe the variations due to time...it
takes time before a diverse multi-aged structure evolves, before a
varied mosaic of plant composition takes hold, and reflects the
reserves necessary for responding to the disturbances it has, and
may in the future encounter.
And yes, that is likely to take more than the time it takes for the
second cohort following first generation disturbance respondents...
Back atcha!
-Don
=============================================================================
TOPIC: BVP's Great Book
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/c9657775309f4d07?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 13 2007 11:19 am
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Bob-
After reading your post below, I thought back to the time that David
Kittredge, you, and I went to the Deerfield River Gorge and walked
into an old-growth stand you were familiar with. We talked about
bark characteristics and gnarly branches, and Dave said "You
know, it's like one of the Supreme Court justices said..."I
don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see
it", and Dave went on to say, "I know old-growth when I'm
in it, but I'm not sure exactly what is different when I'm out of
it", and then he challenged us to more fully identify what
'old-growth' was.
That and other considerations I think spurred both of us on, to more
completely define old-growth. Western forest ecologists had a head
start, with the pressure of commercial interests wanting to consume
them (old-growth forests!). Old-growth forests in the East had been
more or less written off, as having already been logged, blown down,
herbivoried, or otherwise disturbed.
Reading your post reminded me of how much effort was applied in
chasing definitions. It was definitely constructive, it drove us all
to further comprehension, but it seemed the closer we got, the less
we could definitively say. Your post below pretty much takes us back
to 'ground zero'...not a bad place to start! It was several years as
I recall, before the medium in which old-growth grows was getting
much investigation...soil microorganisms had to be an 'obligate'
part of the ecosystem equation, as it didn't take much disturbance
of 'ground zero' before the vigor and resilience was affected.
Another consideration was the history (reference conditions) of the
stand/forest...what was the natural disturbance regime, had there
been significant human entries into the ecosystem, whether is was
herbivory imbalance (wildlife consumption outside of natural ranges
of variability), domestic grazing, prior indigenous cultural
practices, selective logging (winter removals of specific market
driven species), or commercially intensive logging.Clearly, in the
East, with several centuries of European settlement and millenia of
prior indigenous cultural occupation, a restrictive, exclusive
definition would preclude what old-growth we walk into and know that
it was different before we walked into it.
There is it seems, enough room for elasticity in the old-growth
definitions. In a biological context, that elasticity in my mind is
the old-growth 'forest health', its 'resilience reserves'...and how
much disturbance it absorbs, yet still rebounds in what we might
call a natural range of variation over time.
Your comments below about the nature of epiphytic plant communities
and that relationship with 'old-growthedness', points out that some
of the most important facets of old-growth forests, are not the
trees themselves, but the communities that their structures permit.
While heterogenous vertical and horizontal structures and species
compositions are big words describing tree relationships, they go
along way towards providing the basis for the biological diversity
that we've come to associate with walking into and out of old-growth
forests. At least one more big word should be in above
sentence...that word would describe the variations due to time...it
takes time before a diverse multi-aged structure evolves, before a
varied mosaic of plant composition takes hold, and reflects the
reserves necessary for responding to the disturbances it has, and
may in the future encounter.
And yes, that is likely to take more than the time it takes for the
second cohort following first generation disturbance respondents...
Back atcha!
-Don
|
