Its not just accumulation that is important, it's also C
C sinks and storage ability depends on whether the young forest
abandoned farmland (in which case its probably a bigger sink,
since it will
start to replenish soil C and will likely be a sink for several
or in a previously forested area on a forest soil, when it will
still be a
sink until age 200 or so for the type of forests you have in MI,
through above ground storage in biomass. Old growth forests on
soils have a net C flux of close to zero, but they have a lot of
so if you replace them with younger forests, there may or may
not be net C
storage each year depending on what happens to the harvested
wood. You can
store the maximum amount of C on a forested landscape if all of
is old growth.
I would say that reforesting formerly forested lands to forest
the existing forest to become old growth on mesic sites would
the atmosphere and store the maximum amount of C. I restrict
that to mesic
sites (which generally are not fire dependent) because in dry
dependent systems the fuel buildup could lead to severe fire
All of these statements could be made false (or more true) by
earthworm invasion, which affects soil and aboveground C storage
ways. That's a big wildcard that we know little about.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 7 2007 10:40 am
From: "Lee E. Frelich"
Last week The Washington Post had an article about forest damage
Hurricane Katrina. An estimated 320 million trees were toppled,
vast tracts of land to invasive species and making an important
After reading the article, my natural attraction to statistics
led to some
rough calculations regarding numbers of trees killed by
derechos and trees that could potentially be killed by warming
from a doubled CO2 climate. As I pointed out in my presentation
at the ENTS
Forest Summit several weeks ago, the latter would result in a
northward shift of the prairie-forest border which currently
Edmonton, Alberta, to southern Michigan, deforesting about
kilometers of land.
The three great derechos in combination (dating from 1977, 1995,
that originated in MN and WI, but continued to NY or Maine,
downed a number
of trees about equal to Katrina (but of course northern trees
than most trees in Louisiana and Mississippi where Katrina did
damage, so that less biomass was deposited on the ground).
The 300 mile shift in the prairie-forest border would kill about
mature trees, about 62 times as many as Katrina.
From: Mike Leonard <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:15:03 -0500
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Katrina forest impacts/big numbers
Speculation like this only feeds those who are thriving
on milking this issue for all its worth.
It is far more likely that a very slow warming trend
will gradually move forest types northward a few miles. In
England, does that mean we should be favoring oak, hardwoods
northern hardwoods as some in the USFS have suggested? No it
Foresters should just keep practicing good silviculture and
diverse mix of healthy full crowned native trees that are best
to the site.
If the Chicken Little crowd was really serious about
reducing the likelihood of catastrophic climate change they
amnesty for illegal aliens (who will help double greenhouse
gases in the
US), push for more nuclear power (no greenhouse gases), and work
preserve most of the Amazon rain forest which have called the
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 9 2007 7:47 am
From: Lee Frelich
I wish it was speculation. Actually my estimates are based on
one of the
lower estimates CO2 increases, and the GCM that predicts the
of climate change per unit CO2 increase (GISS) among those
recent estimates of biome locations put the prairie-forest
border at Cape
Churchill, Manitoba, for a doubled CO2 climate, thus moving it
The the new high resolution techniques for analyzing the
record show large changes in the location of the prairie-forest
within a few decades in response to smaller magnitude of climate
than we are likely to experience in the next century. The
record also shows that many tree species in eastern North
America in the
past have changed their ranges by 500-1000 miles or more in
response to a
magnitude of temperature change similar to that expected in the
century, in contrast to the conservative 300 mile estimate that
Responses twice my estimate are within the range of possibility,
smaller responses are unlikely. And the response in the
border in Russia will be 2-4 times what it is on North America
due to its
location further north and larger continental land mass. These
happened in the past and they will happen again with this
climate change because the laws of physics and biology are still
Regarding good silviculture, it won't hurt, and will help a
won't suffice for a response to climate change. Even if we
reduction in CO2 emissions in the next few decades, the
magnitude and rate
of change coming would overwhelm the ability of most tree
migrate or undergo selection and adaptation to a warmer climate.
Its an interesting question whether natural selection could have
in black spruce and tamarack forests still existing in a place
Tennessee, where they were dominant 17,000 years ago. The answer
probably yes, if those species had been systematically selected
resistance to heat over the 2000-4000 year period during which
upward trend in temperatures occurred, which would have allowed
generations of selection. In the next century we will experience
magnitude of climate change similar to that that moved black
spruce from TN
to northern MN, but that's only 2-3 generations of trees, not
allow adaptation. The reason trees moved their range in response
slow climate change of the past, rather than adaptation by
selection, was because trees from the south were preadapted to
conditions and were able to competitively displace northerly
before they could undergo natural selection.
The real Achilles heel for trees, that makes either adaptation
difficult when there is rapid climate change, is that they do
uniform genetic structure throughout their range, in which case
in the overlap between the current and future range would
change. Instead, they have great diversity across their range,
ecotypes, each of which has relatively little ability to
compared to the species as a whole. Thus, when high rates of
occurred in the past (and if they occur in the future), the
declines precipitously, leaving only a few scattered individuals
with unusual environments, and it takes about a millennium to
reclaim the landscape when the climate settles down. The
records shows this pattern of rapid disappearance of a forest
by slow recovery after a variety of types of environmental
including the last time hemlock went almost extinct, 5000 ybp. A
of recovery time is nothing in the life of a forest, but it
long to people.
TOPIC: Katrina forest impacts/big numbers
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 2:50 am
From: "Mike Leonard"
Some scientists say that basing warming estimates solely on the
of CO2 increase is flawed because of:
1. Increased CO2 will increase plant growth.
2. The oceans will absorb more (it's a huge "carbon
3. At least some of the warming is based on natural solar cycles
radiation from the sun).
4. Increased cloud cover could offset some of the warming.
If the prairie-forest border moves substantially, then it stands
reason that other borders will move as well. The tree line (the
forest) will move farther north. And perhaps some prairie will
forest. It all depends on how rainfall patterns change in the
One could offset the other. In other words, there will be
there will be losers - this applies especially to the
sector but water supplies are a concern as well.
So if one is to accept your scenario that climate will move 300
northward, then only those resilient species with wide ranges
grow on a wide variety of sites (red oak, red maple, white pine
east) may be able to adapt to the swift climate change.
What about sea level rise? How many feet do you predict? Maybe
like to suggest that buying real estate in Florida or Cape Cod
a bad investment? How about the 100 million people who live in
in Bangladesh? They're screwed right?
There is no way in hell that we earthlings will be able to
achieve a 75%
reduction in greenhouse gases. We won't even be able to cap them
existing levels. Hell coal mine fires in China give off as much
our entire transportation system! And keeping China and India
out of the
Kyoto Accords make that a joke. Why should we kill our economy
industry will simply expand in China? It makes no sense. What
sense is to conserve and produce more of our own energy.
Well I'm not as pessimistic as you. There are many promising
technologies which will mitigate any serious climate change such
seeding the oceans with iron which will increase plankton growth
huge amounts of CO2 out of the air. Hey you have to be positive,
otherwise what do we tell our kids that they better buy a lot of
and learn to become survivalists?
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 7:02 am
From: "Lee E. Frelich"
There is a lot of new information in the last few years on the
points that you make, and I am now satisfied that we have a good
perfect) understanding. Increased CO2 can only increase growth
up to a
point, because the kinetics of CO2 entering the leaf and being
used in the
chemical reactions are limited by other factors than CO2
then there is the issue of the increased demand for nitrogen at
growth rates, which in our FACE (free air carbon exchange, in
of land with intact plant communities are fumigated with CO2 to
doubled CO2 climate) experiment in Minnesota, resulted in a
increase in plant growth after several years of doubled CO2.
Recent data on
the oceans indicates their capacity to absorb CO2 will also soon
saturated, and this is also shown in the paleo record to have
past episodes of high atmospheric CO2. The warming based on
solar cycles is
well known and has been thoroughly taken into account in the
presented in the IPCC report, where they show increasing
differences between trends caused by changes in solar output and
temperatures change caused by CO2 in the past 100 years as well
future predictions. Clouds can either increase or decrease
because water is a greenhouse gas, and in addition the effects
will vary by
location. This is the least well understood aspect of climate
major strides in understanding clouds and taking their impacts
in global circulation models has been accomplished in the last
Your comments regarding red oak, red maple and white pine are
right on the
mark (for the Midwest I would also add American basswood and bur
have been telling people to expect those species to do well,
caveat that the prairies are also going to expand.
I remain positive about people using their ingenuity to solve
though a combination of energy conservation, renewable energy,
energy, carbon sequestration, and albedo modification, thus
impacts I have pointed out to some degree. That positive
attitude may start
to fade in a few years if I don't see some major progress. I am
offering any predictions on rate of sea level rise, since we
much about lag times for melting of large ice sheets. We know
that the last
time CO2 was as high as it is predicted to be by 2050 (for a
usual scenario), the oceans were 70-90 feet higher than they are
if history repeats itself, we don't know how long it would take
for that to
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 7:25 am
Two of your quotes:
"Well I'm not as pessimistic as you."
- Are you sure you know how pessimistic someone else is, or are
possibilities of climate change just getting you down?
"There is no way in hell that we earthlings will be able to
reduction in greenhouse gases."
-Doesn't sound very optimistic to me.
"Hey you have to be positive.."
-I agree that positivity make life more fun, but we don't
"have" to do
anything. I think it is more important to be able to consider
possiblities, and make our choices based on what we think is
likely. I also gree with you that there are some technological
- if we chose to support them. I think that the greatest chance
make a difference comes in our own consumer choices and choice
It seems like many people are opposed to climate change because
to mitigate it would be inconvenient. I really hope we can tell
grand kids: "We had to make some sacrifices and there were
times, but we still have an atmosphere, and some of my favorite
are still relatively intact". The alternative might sound
had the chance to avoid some of this, but were were too selfish
make any sacrifices. No way was I going to use less energy when
people in China were using more"
Yes, people want forests, and they want a 6,000 sq. ft. house.
want a pleasant climate and want to heat that 6,000 sq. ft.
drive a Hummer.
I am hopeful that if I am able to come to the conclusion that if
having forests and a livable climate is important to me, then I
consume less, that most people will also be able to make that
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 7:25 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"
Well summarized. The clouds are one of the big unknowns. High
clouds tend to absorb IR from above and thus have a cooling
whereas low level clouds tend to absorb IR from below and thus
have a warming effect. The origin of the clouds varies as well.
example, higher level clouds can form from anthropogenic
pollution emitted from tall industrial stacks (some see this as
rationale for increasing stack emissions!). There is also the
negative feedback between the ocean and the atmosphere regarding
(Dimethyl Sulfide), a byproduct of metabolism by
(microscopic photoautotroph). The basic ideas is that
coccolithophorid blooms caused by anthopogenic pollution can
higher levels of DMS which become cloud nuclei and increase
Of course this is only one example of the exceedingly complex
positive and negative feedback loops that are part of the
complex dynamic, and adaptive system. I am not optimistic that
will ever elucidate the biosphere in toto. Let's hope that the
"planetary engineers" don't implement their rather
for altering global warming, such as releasing iron into oceanic
to increase productivity and CO2 fixation (plausible but
unpredictable), the placing of satellites with large mirrors to
redirect sunlight on the surface of the Earth (not quite
or halocarbon injection into the stratosphere to interfere with
The Precautionary Principle seems prudent.
On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Lee E. Frelich wrote:
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 7:45 am
The points Gary and Co. raised are quite right though they only
brush the surface explaining the complexity of the systems we
are 'experimenting' with. It occurred to me the other day that
our jobs (as foresters) are going to become very 'interesting'
in the next few years.
Some scientists say ....
I have to ask which scientists those are? The handful who are
getting their paycheck from the hydrocarbon industry or the
other 98% who agree that global warming is man caused and
immanent and likely to cause problems for our species that we
can't even imagine yet.
To those who argue to me that global warming is a 'natural'
process, I remind that there were times in earth's 'natural'
history that we could not have survived here. Was it the
Pleistocene when 90% of all life on earth vanished because of a
global temperature shift? It's been a while since worked with
global geology, but the point is it's not a matter of whether a
global warming is 'natural' or not but whether we, and the
organisms we rely on, can survive it.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 7:51 am
From: "Lee E. Frelich"
Yes, I agree that trying to engineer things too much as a
global warming might backfire, and that strategies such as
conservation, and carbon sequestration using technology invented
of years ago in the form of trees are a safer way to go
(although I am not
opposed to a few nuclear power plants using the new technology
the last few decades that would be very much safer than the
Surely someone could find some genetic variants of paper birch
can withstand drought and heat, and we could plant a few million
those to sequester carbon and due to their light colored bark
slightly raise the earth's albedo as well. This would probably
and cheaper than putting giant mirrors in space and dumping iron
ocean, and it would be quite attractive for humans and wildlife
at the same
BTW--wouldn't dumping iron in the ocean quickly lead to other
limitations such as P or N shortage? History indicates that most
fertilizations with single elements lead to a short pulse of
followed limitation in other nutrients, rather than to the
sustained increase in productivity.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 7:54 am
"Was it the Pleistocene when 90% of all life on earth
of a global temperature shift?"
No, it was the end-Permian extinction
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 8:04 am
As I was just reading - thanks. I see also that it was 96% that
died. I just think it's pretty arrogant to automatically assume
we'd be part of any percentage that might survive another mass
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 8:27 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"
Yes dumping iron in the ocean would lead to other growth
such as P or N but not until the productivity has increased
(i.e. enough N and P is present but very low amount of Fe in the
gyres). Of course what you refer to is the "Limiting
concept. And for the uninitiated on the list this means that
will always be a limiting factor (in many cases limiting
that keeps the biotic potential of any species from becoming
realized. In freshwater aquatic environments the limiting
often phosphorus or nitrogen (also silica for diatoms, the
plankters in spring and fall) but in these oceanic gyres the
nutrient is iron so if you increase the iron concentration the
photoplankton will respond by increasing their populations;
else is then limiting (such as N or P or LIGHT because the
is so dense).
An good example of what happens with anthropogenic augmentation
limiting nutrients is when leaky septic tanks and agricultural
increase the level of P entering the lake system. As more and
Phosphorus enters the system and the ratio of N/P changes the
usually becomes limiting but not to the extent that the P
the population. Why? Because cyanobacteria ("bluegreen
capable of fixing nitrogen; these photoplankton quickly
other the true algal groups (i.e. eukaryotic) to become the
predominant plankters of the system leading to taste and odor
problems. Silica also becomes limiting to diatomic species. This
why there is a "parade" of photoplankton species
throughout the year
as different nutrients, light, temp, and other factors wax and
Superimpose on the changing environment the multitude of species
different Hutchinsonian niches and one can see why changing a
can cause significant and often unpredictable change in the
(and cascade down the food chain) due to postive and negative
loops, lag phase, nonlinear relationships, "tipping
We shouldn't be experimenting at the planetary level.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 11:21 am
From: Carolyn Summers
We should not accept coal; most of us wouldnıt, but it is being
us. I canıt discuss what the French do, but they do some things
we do and maybe this is one of them. But that doesnıt mean we
can do it
safely; I live too close to Indian Point in an area that canıt
evacuated in an emergency; it is a constant threat. And the
for a new nuclear plant will undoubtedly exceed the time itıs
taking for the
Cape Cod wind project. BTW, have you seen the lighter than air
turbines that fly at 1000 feet where there is always air
look like enormous kites tethered to the ground. So far there
prototypes, not yet operational. Could be much better than
Re Boston accents, I grew up thinking that the word ³bastard²
³bastid,² because that s the way my dad pronounced it. There
words, too, but that one sticks in my mind.
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 12:20 pm
Thanks for the great exchange between you and Mike. This
response goes a long way in helping me understand the areas that
previously were not sufficiently well understood and what is
left to understand. In terms of leaderships, a giant leap for
the United States would be to put someone in the White House
that has the intelligence at least of an ordinary, rul of the
mill chimpanzee. But for some reason the red states prefer a
fake good old boy president one who falls just shy of having
ordianry chimp smarts. Gosh, did I just say that?
TOPIC: Extinction events
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 10 2007 6:03 pm
From: "Edward Frank"
there have been a large number of extinction events, most of
unexplained. The last major extinction was at the end of the Mesozoic
the death of the dinosaurs. There was a loss of about Most of
species known were were dead already before the end of the era
in a series
of smaller extinctions. The Alverez Meteor impact is blamed by
media for the final extinction, and dramatic animations have
depicting the event. Not everyone is sure it really happened
There was a meteor impact and it coincided with the extinction
it can not be proven that it caused the extinction. The actual
of species that went extinct does not fit the pattern expected
from a meteor
impact. There is a nice one page discussion of this on the
(Alverez taught at
In the Permian extinction 90% of all species on earth, both
animals died out. There were less than 2 dozen species of
survived the extinction event, and most of them were fish.
Mammals had not
yet evolved, but their direct ancestor - a mammal like reptile
included the giant sail-back reptiles - was one of the 2 dozen
survive. The cause of the extinctions is unknown.
Here is a list of other mass extinctions in Earths history -
TOPIC: Katrina forest impacts/big numbers
== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 11 2007 3:17 am
From: "Mike Leonard"
Even if you are 100% correct it doesn't matter because I have
thought that the global warming argument (who is responsible,
will it warm, etc.) is a waste of time. What is relevant is that
should have had a real national energy policy starting in the
after the first oil shock by OPEC.
That would have meant higher fossil fuel taxes to make
competitive until the new technologies arrived but the oil lobby
Now it's the farm lobby and their allies who have won with the
and outrageous ethanol from corn scam. Getting ethanol from corn
barely positive net energy, so why are we doing it? Ethanol from
also has other drawbacks:
Federal subsidies cost $7 billion (equal to around
grain needed to fill up an SUV would feed a person for a year!
How about "carbon trading" like the Euros are doing?
It seems very
inefficient and it would be easy to cheat. It just shifts the
around. Also it would mean a huge and wasteful bureaucracy to
administer. I think a carbon tax would be far more efficient.
wants to do away with the IRS and have a consumption tax. I
is a great idea. Just piggyback the carbon tax along with it.
I'm not positive about any real changes coming no matter who
elected because most politicians only care about getting
they don't want to offend anybody. And there's always gridlock
special interests pay off the pols. Term limits would fix this
about an environmental dictator?
Well if the oceans go 90 feet higher at least my house is 1,000
above sea level!
== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 11 2007 6:15 am
Dear 'Mike' -
The main reason you get only 1% of your energy from renewables
is because this country hasn't invested in the infrastructure
needed to produce it. Consider Germany, whose government has
pushed solar power and which plans on having 25% of it's power
produced by renewable sources by 2020. It's not 100%, naturally,
but between it and wind, and nuclear, which I have far less
problems with than fossil fuels, they could. If Germany can put
that much of a dent in their power production, imagine what a
sunny place like New Mexico could do?
It isn't that renewable sources couldn't power our future, but
just like the oil and gas industries, we need the infrastructure
in place to let it do so. Traditional source power companies
don't want to fund renewables' infrastructure because they don't
make the margin of profit they are used to from it, so it is up
to the people (or visionary politicians like Germany has) to do
it. Nuclear is probably part of our future, but the very fact
that it does produce dangerous waste, regardless of how 'safe'
you can make it, would tend me to want to rely as heavily as I
could on renewables.
== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 11 2007 6:53 am
From: "Lee E. Frelich"
I have long known that I am 100% correct but that it didn't
brother informed me of that 40 years ago. Basically, I agree
everything you say below.
The predictions for the amount of global warming that would
occur per unit
CO2 increase in the atmosphere have been known since Arrhenius
his work on that topic in 1906, and detailed predictions for
likely happen in a doubled CO2 world were presented to the
public in the
1970s and 1980s, and yet all the stuff you mention continues to
Regarding what Ed, Bob, Carolyn and others said about human
can't see that global warming, even a high magnitude of global
will cause us to go extinct, but it will probably wreck the
reduce population. I can see standards of living ending up
farmers in Kansas during the 1930s dust bowl, which, given the
physics and biology, is what the earth can actually support. At
time, I am not sure that our so-called high standard of living
if we live in a country where churches need an armed security
force, as we
found out from the shootings in Colorado yesterday.
It doesn't matter to the ecosystem at all if global warming
causes 50% of
all species to go extinct (because there is plenty of redundancy
function among species) or if the boreal forest moves 300 or 800
further north, or if forests are in a state of dieback and
for several hundred years. These are all things that the earth
ecosystems have been through many times before. The earth has no
to having a certain type of forest in a certain place, but
I still hold a slender hope that we can reduce CO2 emissions to
where it levels off at 420-450 ppm, which would allow the slow
warming to which people and forests can easily adapt, that you
hope for. If we reduced fossil fuel use by 30% through fuel
get 30% of our fuel and electrical power from renewable sources,
enough trees (or restore enough native prairie, which sequesters
of carbon on a per acre basis about equal to a forest on similar
sequester 30% of the carbon we emit, we could accomplish that
right now the odds are against it).
== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 11 2007 6:57 am
It is unfortunate how our political leaders are so different in
private lives, and often in their policies while elected, than
ideals they espouse. Al Gore for one, is and has been heavily
invested in Occidental Petroleum, which not only fuels global
but is guilty of many abuses of the environment and people of
- talk about destroying forests.
That sort of hypocracy and the neo-liberal trade policies (WTO,
etc.) that are so in vogue in both of the major parties are some
the reasons I had such a hard time voting for Gore in 2000. I do
appreciate what Gore has done to educate the public about
change because I believe it is a serious issue.
I have similar concerns over John Edwards, who in many ways is
favored cadidate this cycle. His private life and public
just don't quite sync-up. I love it when he talks about local
economy, green energy, and ending corporate corruption of
Well, back to trees. You have been bemoaning the lack of a
Hemlock. Here in the South there is a lot of discussion about
fuel from non-comercial trees. While this could be very scary
deforestation, it could also help us find an economic driver for
restoring the many clearcuts on public land, and pine
are about to be devastated by that exotic parasitoid wasp Jess
telling me about.
TOPIC: Global Warming and Earlier Spring Seasons
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 1 2008 5:24 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"
Global Warming Bringing Early Spring Seasons To Eurasian Forests
ScienceDaily (Apr. 1, 2008) -- With the help of satellite data,
researchers from laboratories in France(1), the UK, Japan and
have completed the accurate and large-scale mapping of leaf
dates in boreal forests. Their work has revealed a remarkable
towards earlier foliation, which occurred between 1987 and 1990,
a large part of northern Eurasia, caused by the unprecedented
in spring temperatures since 1921. By comparing these results
previous studies available, they were able to reconstruct the
foliation trend over the whole 20th century. Their work,
journal Global Change Biology, enables the effects of global
on these forests to be measured.
Gary A. Beluzo
Professor of Environmental Science
Division of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Holyoke Community College
303 Homestead Avenue
Holyoke, MA 01040
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 1:16 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE
A number of times in the past, I recall comments in the forum
bemoaning the absence of strategies to mitigate causes of global
climate change. Ignoring the fact that we don't know all we need
to know, I think most of think we know enough to start changing
our ways, if nothing else to get "change" happening.
Towards that end, the Society of American Foresters has put out
the following paper "Forest Management Solutions for
Mitigating Climate Change in the United States" which can
be found at http://www.safnet.org/jof_cctf.pdf
It's 50 some pages long, so many may not get through it, but I'd
be interested in responses from those that did.
This might be too much of a bite for the chat room or your new
sister forum, but certainly could provide grist for a discussion
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 3:51 pm
From: Lee Frelich
An even better report was recently published by the National
Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF), 'Beyond Old Growth,
in a Changing World', available at their website
http://www.ncseonline.org/NCSSF/ (scroll down, its the third
listed on their homepage). Its 2.5MB, but worth the wait to
has syntheses from 5 regional workshops throughout the U.S.
including one I
participated in for the Great Lakes Region.
Check out the following pictures by my Ph.D. advisor Craig
Lorimer from the
University of Wisconsin: Old growth white pine in Sylvania
on page 9 (where Bob Leverett, Monica and I are going for a hike
tomorrow); Hemlock in the Porcupine Mountains on page 25; an Old
hardwood forest on Nicolet NF on page 34.
There is good discussion of the problems old growth forests face
global warming and other factors.