Environmental StudiesA forum for discussion of science related environmental issues.
Advertisement (please log in or register to remove this ad)
Notices
Welcome to the Hypography Science Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, take quizzes, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
View Poll Results: What takes place in your country ?
You know what, Im not sure I know there are big plantations, but everywhere around the urban areas only seem to be getting cleared without much replanting.
__________________ Jay-qu
::Hypography Moderator of..
Chemistry, Physics & Mathematics, Astronomy & Cosmology, Space and Technology & gadgets Forums
Einstein said that if quantum mechanics is right, then the world is crazy. Well, Einstein was right. The world is crazy.
-Daniel Greenberger
Generally, I would have to say holding steady or slightly increasing.
But one has to keep this in mind with the HUGE deforestation that took place prior to the increases. And I would say a hundred acres of christmas trees doesnt quite make up a forest.
20 years before you can begin to call a pine planting a 'forest'
40 years before you can call it an oak forest.....
Generally, I would have to say holding steady or slightly increasing.
But one has to keep this in mind with the HUGE deforestation that took place prior to the increases. And I would say a hundred acres of christmas trees doesnt quite make up a forest.
20 years before you can begin to call a pine planting a 'forest'
40 years before you can call it an oak forest.....
If I'm not mistaken, the figures I put up refer to the volume of wood in board feet, not the acreage coverage, or number of trees. There is a lot of forest farming going on beyond Xmas trees, including selected harvesting for pulp, lumber, & fencing for example. It doesn't take large trees for these products, and they are sustainable. Much of the best practice here in the PNW is found on private holdings, and I think the government has a lot to learn from them.
I realize there is wide variability among states, but on the whole the US is planting more trees right now than we harvest as I understand the figures.
PS Checked my links, and they are referring to acreage contrary to what I just said; however, when loggers scale trees, they do so by volume, i.e. the number of board feet and by this measure a smaller healthy stand contains more lumber than a larger area forest of unhealthy trees.
A lot of trees are being planted in the US, but I wouldn't call it afforestation.
Monoculture does not produce a forest. It is spooky to go into one of these "forests" because all the trees are evenly spaced in rows and it is dead silent. These monoculture stands are known to not harbor wildlife (besides maybe some squirrels and crows here in the south).
So I think it's a misnomer to call such places forests, and in that sense, I don't believe there is a lot of afforestation going on.
Cutting down a 500 year old forest is not replaceable with a reseeding of Douglas Fir, especially if that reseeding is cut down in forty years.
__________________ Hypography Science Forums Moderator
--- "There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew." - Marshall McLuhan
"We must not forget that when radium was discovered no one knew that it would prove useful in hospitals. The work was one of pure science. And this is a proof that scientific work must not be considered from the point of view of the direct usefulness of it." - Marie Curie
A lot of trees are being planted in the US, but I wouldn't call it afforestation.
Monoculture does not produce a forest. It is spooky to go into one of these "forests" because all the trees are evenly spaced in rows and it is dead silent. These monoculture stands are known to not harbor wildlife (besides maybe some squirrels and crows here in the south).
So I think it's a misnomer to call such places forests, and in that sense, I don't believe there is a lot of afforestation going on.
Cutting down a 500 year old forest is not replaceable with a reseeding of Douglas Fir, especially if that reseeding is cut down in forty years.
In the kindest possible terms, poppycock! While x-mas tree farms may plant in rows, that is not how forest land is replanted here in the NW. Furthermore, of the 16% of land that is private forest in Oregon, there is a concerted effort to foster the natural diversity of tree species as this ameliorates loss of harvest/revenue in the event of a species specific pathogens/insects infestation.
I just watched a PBS special on NW forestry in Oregon and inspite of all the eco-freak dooms-day claims, the private owners look to me to be improving the forests.
If I'm not mistaken, the figures I put up refer to the volume of wood in board feet, not the acreage coverage, or number of trees. There is a lot of forest farming going on beyond Xmas trees, including selected harvesting for pulp, lumber, & fencing for example. It doesn't take large trees for these products, and they are sustainable. Much of the best practice here in the PNW is found on private holdings, and I think the government has a lot to learn from them.
I realize there is wide variability among states, but on the whole the US is planting more trees right now than we harvest as I understand the figures.
PS Checked my links, and they are referring to acreage contrary to what I just said; however, when loggers scale trees, they do so by volume, i.e. the number of board feet and by this measure a smaller healthy stand contains more lumber than a larger area forest of unhealthy trees.
uh oh... I need to clarify...
I understood TBAs poll and question from a general ecologically healthy forest standpoint rather than a harvest for profit regard. I have a little DNR produced brochure states that "an unmanaged 40 acre aspen/birch stand typically might appeal to 15 species of mammal and 60-80 species of birds. If that same woodland were modified by harvest, openings or other habitat improvements, the greater variety of habitat types would increase the numbers and kinds of wildlife species."
The point I was trying to make was by planting 500 acres of one type of tree in an area (and this is region specific) you narrow the health of a forest. A natural forest has at least several types of trees, in varied growth stages, with a wide variety of plant life below. Our forest management practices are usually geared towards profitable harvest, and row after row of similar sized trees, planted in groupings that negate actual forest diversity in general.
And while people do plant trees around the borders of their property, or to shade certain parts of their yards, not alot of thought is given to the diversity on a wide scale plan. So you can technically have mile after mile of three or four tree types, rather than the 10 - 20 types of varied ages typically found in less than a mile of forest.
For example:
I have 5 acres of land. I have 4 types of conifer and 2 types of oak (varied ages) a small stand of aspen, a few cottonwoods, basswood, hickory, locust, plum, cherry, elm, box elder, and birch, that I can think of right now. The surrounding forests have a few additional types. 2 acres of this land is open grassland/forest edge type. I have tamarack and black spruce nearby, but my particular landscape doesnt support those types of tree. That is a diverse forest example and more along the lines of what I think of when I hear the term 'forest'.
It also contributes to my great backyard birding/wildlife watching
Astronomical instruments needed to answer crucial questions, such as the search for Earth-like planets or the way the Universe expands, have come a step closer with the first demonstration at the telescope of a new calibration system for precise spectrographs. The method uses a Nobel Prize-winning technology called a 'laser frequency comb', and is published in this week's issue of Science. Read » | 0 comments
Stanford computer scientists have developed an artificial intelligence system that enables robotic helicopters to teach themselves to fly difficult stunts by watching other helicopters perform the same maneuvers. The result is an autonomous helicopter than can perform a complete airshow of complex tricks on its own. Read » | 0 comments