Mr tree

[BenR]

Forest canopies is EXPENSIVE though! Hama has klinger published any papers on this subject?

[RobArb]

An excellent starter book on lichens is Lichens by William Purvis ISBN 978-0-565-09153-8

 

Also consider Lichens by Oliver Gilbert from the New Naturalist series. The book is now available as print on demand. By the way the whole NN series is amazing

 

Books such as Lichen Biology 2nd ed. by Thomas Nash are also excellent but far more complex.

 

There is also Mosses and Liverworts by Ron Porley and Nick Hodgetts in the New Naturalist series.

 

British Lichen Society and NHBS also have various small publications and cards about lichens that inhabit tree surfaces

 

Thanks:thumbup:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Forest canopies is EXPENSIVE though! Hama has klinger published any papers on this subject?

 

 

he has a site, cant remember the name of it, im sure he has:001_cool:

[BenR]

unrelated to lichens, but I found this after a quick search on klinger: http://www.remineralize.org/saving_california_oaks.pdf

 

and this http://suddenoaklifeorg.wordpress.com/ presumably his site..

Edited March 2, 2011 by BenR
more info

[Stephen Blair]

The best thing to get rid of those pesky Lichens is a pressure washer, nothing too powerfull, the little stihl or Kracher will do it easily and not damage the bark of the tree:thumbup1:, also makes it easier to see your gaff when pruning apple trees:thumbup:

[RobArb]

Heathen:lol:

[mrtree]

Is Forest Canopies really expensive? NHBS has if for 37.5 pounds. What is that less than an hour for a crew, maybe a couple of hours of pay for a climber. I think that is cheap when you consider you get 500 pages of great info.

[BenR]

Is Forest Canopies really expensive? NHBS has if for 37.5 pounds. What is that less than an hour for a crew, maybe a couple of hours of pay for a climber. I think that is cheap when you consider you get 500 pages of great info.

 

Ok, that is not too bad. Last time I saw a price it was over 60quid. Tbh, it is not that much money, but Forest Canopies is probably not the best introductory book anyway, which I think was the original question. As far as I know, Forest Canopies is a series of publications from various authors about specific investigations so I would think it is more aimed at canopy researchers. I still fancy getting a copy though! At under 40quid I may have to! Cheers for the info mrtree:thumbup1:

[mrtree]

forest decline is driven by the increasing dominance of the mosses.

 

something Dr lee Klinger is rather apt at describing.

 

and trees didnt evolve sloughing bark in a polluted environment

 

I think this may be out of context. Moss and trees are organisms with intimate relationships. Suggesting that forest decline is diriven by mosses may be too general a statement and very preliminary an answer. Dr. Klinger's work (and others) may find mosses on and under declining trees but is it a chicken and egg question? Do mosses increases as more water and light become available as a trees declines and losses leaves or are the mosses causing the decline?

 

In western North America in many areas if SOD, ecosystems evolved with fire. I don't know but I am willing to bet in fire dominated ecosystems mosses (and bryophytes) have increased as fire has been surpressed. Are the mosses leading or following the ecosystem succession?

 

I doubt mosses are the primary cause of much decline as many forests have huge amounts of mosses which seems to be natural and further mossess cannot thrive on the forest floor where decidious trees dominate as they are often smothered by leaves (thus they like trunks and limbs). Coniferous forests do not have this smothering problem so forest floor mosses tend to be abundant in coniferous forests.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I think this may be out of context. Moss and trees are organisms with intimate relationships. Suggesting that forest decline is diriven by mosses may be too general a statement and very preliminary an answer. Dr. Klinger's work (and others) may find mosses on and under declining trees but is it a chicken and egg question? Do mosses increases as more water and light become available as a trees declines and losses leaves or are the mosses causing the decline?

 

In western North America in many areas if SOD, ecosystems evolved with fire. I don't know but I am willing to bet in fire dominated ecosystems mosses (and bryophytes) have increased as fire has been surpressed. Are the mosses leading or following the ecosystem succession?

 

I doubt mosses are the primary cause of much decline as many forests have huge amounts of mosses which seems to be natural and further mossess cannot thrive on the forest floor where decidious trees dominate as they are often smothered by leaves (thus they like trunks and limbs). Coniferous forests do not have this smothering problem so forest floor mosses tend to be abundant in coniferous forests.

 

forests are not perpetual, they come and go, not all forests end up the same way for sure and yes it was a generalisation but a real one. No im not saying all mosses take over the forest and cause decline, but i am definatley saying they are the result of biological switches, i believe it is a natural cycle as organic material humus and moisture biuld up within the forest. Of course this is held in flux in a fire eco system, but in others it is not.

 

one thing for sure is that trees die when smothered in mosses, and trees suffer in pots when the soil surface has become moss bryophyte dominated.

 

this is nothing that is not known, or new, this is how these systems rise and fall. And thank god for it, for the mosses lock more carbon than trees by a long long stretch

Edited March 3, 2011 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad