Deforestation and Reforestation (recycling, pollution, fertilize, pumps)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read that out West (think CA, etc.), the forests were burned frequently by the Natives before European settlers came, and therefore, the forests were actually rather "tidy," resembling a forested park with large trees with lots of space between them more than the dense forests we see today. Old growth forests are actually less diverse, as they provide less food for wildlife.
Large trees with lots of space! Now let me see, how can this lead to biodiversity? No, just don’t get that one, sorry. Maybe the reason this was done, was so that a few larger species that were easier to hunt would become prevalent.
Large trees with lots of space! Now let me see, how can this lead to biodiversity? No, just don’t get that one, sorry. Maybe the reason this was done, was so that a few larger species that were easier to hunt would become prevalent.
Burning clears out the brush and causes new growth, which in turn provides food for wildlife. The space provides room for the new growth. The fire was not hot enough to kill the larger trees. That's how things were for thousands of years. Currently the brush, etc., piles up out there to dangerous levels, and when it ignites (inevitable) it burns so hot it does kill the larger trees and is very destructive.
Burning clears out the brush and causes new growth, which in turn provides food for wildlife. The space provides room for the new growth. The fire was not hot enough to kill the larger trees. That's how things were for thousands of years. Currently the brush, etc., piles up out there to dangerous levels, and when it ignites (inevitable) it burns so hot it does kill the larger trees and is very destructive.
I know all of the above, but that was not my point.
My point was that if land was maintained by regular burning to the point that there were large open spaces with only big trees, then where would all the smaller trees and wildlife be.
Maybe we have messed up the world more than we know. For the land to need mans intervention must tell us that something is wrong.
I know all of the above, but that was not my point.
My point was that if land was maintained by regular burning to the point that there were large open spaces with only big trees, then where would all the smaller trees and wildlife be.
Maybe we have messed up the world more than we know. For the land to need mans intervention must tell us that something is wrong.
New growth happens quickly after a burn. The wildlife gets more food from the young growth than the old growth. There will be small trees that will survive the burning, but they mostly have little chance until some of the old growth trees die and fall to make room (they block the sun, and while some trees have adapted to a lack of sunlight, most need more than what's available when overshadowed by giant old growth trees).
Why would it say something is wrong? We are part of the environment, whether some people accept that or not.
I know all of the above, but that was not my point.
My point was that if land was maintained by regular burning to the point that there were large open spaces with only big trees, then where would all the smaller trees and wildlife be.
Maybe we have messed up the world more than we know. For the land to need mans intervention must tell us that something is wrong.
The land doesn't "need" man's intervention. We do. That's why the Native Americans burnt the forest. It wasn't some forest stewardship thing. It creates new growth and edge habitats in definite places. Much easier to hunt if you know where the animals will be.
We manage forest fires now, because, while the forest doesn't need to be burnt often, like the natives did, it does need to periodically burn. And we don't like those massive fires, since they tend to burn everything around the forest down too.
New growth happens quickly after a burn. The wildlife gets more food from the young growth than the old growth. There will be small trees that will survive the burning, but they mostly have little chance until some of the old growth trees die and fall to make room (they block the sun, and while some trees have adapted to a lack of sunlight, most need more than what's available when overshadowed by giant old growth trees).
Why would it say something is wrong? We are part of the environment, whether some people accept that or not.
Its good to see such insightful arguments put across.
Yes we are a part of the environment, maybe sometimes not so friendly to it though, but I am sure we are getting better.
The land doesn't "need" man's intervention. We do. That's why the Native Americans burnt the forest. It wasn't some forest stewardship thing. It creates new growth and edge habitats in definite places. Much easier to hunt if you know where the animals will be.
We manage forest fires now, because, while the forest doesn't need to be burnt often, like the natives did, it does need to periodically burn. And we don't like those massive fires, since they tend to burn everything around the forest down too.
Man made forest plantations made large chunks of South look quite butt ugly and dead. Freaking scraggy pine trees everywhere, little else, little life, it doesn't even smell like a pine. By removing trees from forest plantations, we remove nutrients, every subsequent plantation is getting scraggier and uglier. 2-3 replanting and soil is dead. There are 5 billion pieces of junk mail delivered every year, eliminating junk insanity alone would save South from agroforestry, but let me guess - economy would suffer, so let's stick our heads in our arses and destroy ourselves into "prosperity".
Man made forest plantations made large chunks of South look quite butt ugly and dead. Freaking scraggy pine trees everywhere, little else, little life, it doesn't even smell like a pine. By removing trees from forest plantations, we remove nutrients, every subsequent plantation is getting scraggier and uglier. 2-3 replanting and soil is dead. There are 5 billion pieces of junk mail delivered every year, eliminating junk insanity alone would save South from agroforestry, but let me guess - economy would suffer, so let's stick our heads in our arses and destroy ourselves into "prosperity".
I know all of the above, but that was not my point.
My point was that if land was maintained by regular burning to the point that there were large open spaces with only big trees, then where would all the smaller trees and wildlife be. Maybe we have messed up the world more than we know. For the land to need mans intervention must tell us that something is wrong.
Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. I didn't repond to other posts about water and such because that would have taken the thread WAY of topic.
I had a forester come out to my place a couple of years ago because I have some timber and would like to be able to periodically harvest/sell, on a rotating basis, for a predicatble source of income.
The forester pointed out, much to my surprise, that the HUGE oaks (which I love dearly) were really nothing but sunlight hogs and acorn producers that kept the smaller trees from growing into trees that would be attractive to a timber buyer.
Overall I think in more recent history that the US has and continues to do pretty good job of reforestation when area have been harvested or burned.
When environmental groups fight against game/parks and try to keep them gathering/clearing deadfall then the risk of uncontrolled forest fires increases significantly. And, with the economy in the poor state and with federal/state budgets cut, game/parks and state conservation departments are taking some significant budget cuts reducing not only staff but available services, including forestation/reforestation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.