Jeff wrote:
> Many foresters claim the climax douglas fir forest requires fire in
> this area. They have found that the seedling die if planted in a
> shady site. The south slopes eventually were filled in by douglas fir,
but it can >take a long time. Another man claims that the douglas fir can
grow in the
> shade if supported by the right fungi.
Interesting. I'm sure it varies a lot depending on many factors (temp.,
slope, soil, other species, etc.), but in my area (Coastal Range, just
north of San Francisco, California), the Douglas Fir tend to grow into
forests on the (shadier, cooler, wetter) north slopes, growing up through a
mixed forest of Oaks, Madrone and Bay (which had taken over areas of
Manzanita, Chapparel, brushy stuff). I don't often see Douglas Fir
growing in the open, but instead sometimes see many tall, thin, straggly
trees that didn't make it up through the canopy. I have also noticed that
when I see many small trees in one area there is often a large mature Doug
Fir nearby; I often get the feeling that the tree knows it is reaching the
end of its time and is starting the trees the will take its place. You are
in a cooler climate (northern end of its range?), so maybe it likes the
warmer sides of the hills and the sun. We get long dry summers, and they
seem to prefer the cooler, shadier spots around here.
> The questions we might want to ask here are:
> 1. What is a climax forest and is that what we want?
I use the term climax forest to mean the native stable (until fire, flood,
landslide, logging, etc.) forest structure. As trees fall and local
unstabilizing events occur, succession takes the area back to the climax
forest state. Redwood forests are a good example. They may last for
thousands of years (millions?) as redwood forests. Openings are only
temporary, as they are always, eventually, filled in by the redwoods again.
Some areas are not forest areas; they may be brush or grasslands, or
wetlands, or whatever. I suppose they may also have a climax state, though
I have never given this much though.
Is it what we want? That depends. It may be the best use of the property,
all species being equal. But if you want to accomplish certain things with
the land, it may not be what you want (see next question). I am not
inspired to live (solely) off of the edibles in a natural Douglas Fir
forest. I'm not even sure the Native Americans did that. Oak Forest?
Maybe. Redwood? No way!
> 2. Should we control the succession of plants and force
> our model of a climax forest?
If you don't know what was growing on the land before logging, you might
guess the wrong "native" forest structure. I think that unless the land
had been logged repeatedly, the native forest will eventually come back
(perhaps with a few new species of nonnatives). The only reasons to
control it would be to speed up the process, make sure a certain
combination of species dominates, or to keep yourself busy <grin>. I feel
that one of Permaculture's visions is that of the food forest / perrennial
garden. This won't just happen on its own, so if it's desired, it must be
created. Being a part of nature, we will always influence it as we go
about our lives; all of the other species do too. As long as we work
within (with & in) Nature, perhaps we are justified in changing it to our
needs. The example of the Beaver comes to mind.
> 3. Is the nature of a climax forest changing due to human influence?
As I mentioned, I think repeated logging, which can deplete the soil, can
make it difficult or even impossible for the same forest species to come
back. Eventually the land may support another forest, although not
necessarily the same species. Perhaps the area may be grassland, brush (or
desert) for a long time. I see hills in California that I'm sure were once
forested. They were logged during the Gold Rush, the building of the
railroads and the building (and rebuilding) of San Francisco. They were
used for cattle grazing for so long after that that the forest never came
back (at least so far). But all of this does not change "the nature of a
climax forest" (semantics? perhaps). They still exist and function as
before, although we often don't leave them alone enough.
> What i have today is mix of natural areas, developing forest garden
> areas, meadows, wetlands, and more intensively managed areas near
> the house. It feels right and it fits the Permaculture zones,
> although that was not the original intent.
Sounds good. So, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you had a problem.
Or is it just that the forestry officials aren't happy?
> Precise definitions and goals in habitat restoration are
> difficult because we are dealing with a changing and
> dynamic environment. What we can do is develop a model
> then actively seek feedback. We never gain total understanding
> and assuming we have all the answers interferes with our ongoing
> education.
Think, Intuit, Try, Watch, Enjoy, Think, Intuit, Try . . . . Isn't that
what life's all about? How marvelous!
Eric:
