Massive Sequoia

[Mark Bolam]

Great watch mate, cheers.

[Mark J]

Not a sequoia but Hap Johnson doing tree stuff.

[Khriss]

That tree would have built a small town also, or miles of rail ties, cannot imagine the timber volume sawn up. K

[Dan Maynard]

11 hours ago, Haironyourchest said:

Gerald Berenek explained why logging the old growth actually benefitted the biodiversity of the forest, especially with sequoia. Not that the really huge specimens shouldn't have been spared, ideally, and nowadays of course, they are. But it's not all black and white.

 

 

This is similar to the discussion we have doing conservation work in British woodlands, where we basically cut down loads of trees to let light in and increase biodiversity. We currently believe that's better because the wildlife has adapted to the cycle, I also remember good old Oliver Rackham saying one of the big problems with conservation work is changing ideas and fashions.

 

The other thing I remember is that Cathedral Grove which is an old growth park where Reg Coates has been working is thought to have burned around 600 years ago because the oldest trees are around that age. So I have an idea that given a few hundred years Beranek is right, it will grow back and be pretty much as it was before.

 

It's a common idea that cutting down all the trees destroys a forest, whereas the picture is far more complicated because you are leaving behind all the stuff under the ground where there's far more going on than we understand. The areas in the UK where most firewood was cut historically, such as Sussex Downs for the iron industry, have the best preserved woodlands.

 

Where they cut less firewood they dug, burned and ploughed to plant wheat or potatoes, lots of ancient woodland was lost to this in the UK since the war so it's easy to point at the Americans but we are guilty here too.

[Stere]

Remember reading something about how much  of south wales valleys were wooded until they swapped over from coppicing the wood and making charcoal, too using coal for industries etc so the woodland lost its economic value.

 

Now the former extensive  woodland area is mostly degraded moorlands rough pasture plagioclimax veg like much of the uk uplands

 

Think it was rackham

 

Also selective felling may kind of replicate the role of the extinct ( hunted to extiction in the neolithic) megafauna that plants may of co evolved with....

 

Links in with the keystone species idea

Edited January 16, 2022 by Stere

[Stubby]

6 hours ago, Dan Maynard said:

This is similar to the discussion we have doing conservation work in British woodlands, where we basically cut down loads of trees to let light in and increase biodiversity. We currently believe that's better because the wildlife has adapted to the cycle, I also remember good old Oliver Rackham saying one of the big problems with conservation work is changing ideas and fashions.

 

The other thing I remember is that Cathedral Grove which is an old growth park where Reg Coates has been working is thought to have burned around 600 years ago because the oldest trees are around that age. So I have an idea that given a few hundred years Beranek is right, it will grow back and be pretty much as it was before.

 

It's a common idea that cutting down all the trees destroys a forest, whereas the picture is far more complicated because you are leaving behind all the stuff under the ground where there's far more going on than we understand. The areas in the UK where most firewood was cut historically, such as Sussex Downs for the iron industry, have the best preserved woodlands.

 

Where they cut less firewood they dug, burned and ploughed to plant wheat or potatoes, lots of ancient woodland was lost to this in the UK since the war so it's easy to point at the Americans but we are guilty here too.

The natural regen in parts of West Sussex after the 87 storm is very good . Better in fact than some of the replanted areas .

[openspaceman]

53 minutes ago, Stubby said:

The natural regen in parts of West Sussex after the 87 storm is very good . Better in fact than some of the replanted areas .

Yes and I wonder how much that is due to a general reduction in rabbit population, whereas roe and muntjac seem to have increased but less damaging?

[Dan Maynard]

Yes and I wonder how much that is due to a general reduction in rabbit population, whereas roe and muntjac seem to have increased but less damaging?

Muntjac is the thing people worry about round here nibbling the regen.

[Dan Maynard]

Yes and I wonder how much that is due to a general reduction in rabbit population, whereas roe and muntjac seem to have increased but less damaging?

Muntjac is the thing people worry about round here nibbling the regen.

[Dan Maynard]

Yes and I wonder how much that is due to a general reduction in rabbit population, whereas roe and muntjac seem to have increased but less damaging?

Muntjac is the thing people worry about round here nibbling the regen.