Jeff wrote:
> The interesting fact about Douglas fir is that the seeds are
> programmed to grow at one specific elevation. So, when we
> say Douglas fir we are talking about a whole array of
> trees.
Are you saying that the name "Douglas Fir" refers to many different species
of trees living at different elevations, or that the Douglas Fir is
significantly different at different elevation and that it is useful to
keep that in mind?
> This gets even more interesting if the foresters i've
> talked to are right. They claim that a seed from an old growth
> Douglas fir does not produce the same tree. Lumber mills claim
> that the wood from an old growth is different from the wood of
> a second growth.
I was under the impression at ALL trees seeds are slightly different to
help the tree adapt and evolve. I have heard this about each branch of
each tree, too. Genetically, you should never get the "same tree" just as
you never get a baby that is a clone of its parents.
Another significant difference between old growth trees and second growth
is the surroundings they grew up in. An old growth tree of a species that
grows in forests grows up in a race for light (tall and thin at first) and
then often slow growing in diameter. A second growth tree (after logging)
grows up out in the open and therefore is often bushy and short at first,
growing in diameter quickly. So, no, old growth and second growth are not
the same, but as far as I know they are still genetically the same species
and therefore could be apart of an old growth forest.
I have been using Douglas Fir to build our home. It is very obvious that
when cut many of the trees were very young and grew VERY quickly by the
spacing of the growth rings. The strength of a tree that grew in diameter
quickly is very poor. In fact, our county building codes have just reduced
the allowable span for a given size board because the wood is not as strong
as it used to be. (This is a good reason for selective logging.) The
quality of the lumber has dropped markedly in the last few years, and I
believe the lumber companies are allowing it to, or have to because of
forest degradation or short re harvesting cycles. I also see them pushing
"engineered lumber" because it can be made from any and all trees of any
size, I assume to allow for even shorter re harvesting times and the use of
otherwise uneconomically valuable timber. The fact that engineered lumber
is now often made from lumber mill waste is good, but the cynic in me see
them lining things up for more profits in the future through more expensive
("value added") lumber products made from "waste trees" and younger stands.
Anybody else seeing this?
> Another interesting view is that we can't
> clone an old growth forest because the plants have changed and
> so has other factors. Once you cut an old growth down it is
> gone forever.
The only thing I have heard along these lines is that what grows up in a
clear cut old growth forest has a long way to go to become an "old growth"
forest again. As I understand it, this is mainly due to the loss of
bio-complexity and a loss of nutrients when the logs were taken away and
the leaf litter stops falling. Repeated clear cutting can cause an
irreparable losses to soil health, therefore the area may never support an
old growth forest again. I am of the opinion that Nature is very
resilient, but its time scales are often too long for us the take into
consideration. I assume that SOME kind of "old growth" forest will
EVENTUALLY be there, though perhaps this time scale makes sustained logging
unsustainable for all practical purposes. Some examples of major
desertification give me some doubt about Nature's resilience against the
ravages of man, although I have seen examples of people restoring
desertified areas through great effort.
I think cloning is unethical, as it does not allow for a species to evolve
and therefore protect (or express?) itself with the power to adapt. I
don't have enough confidence in man's ability to understand the complexity
of Nature enough to manipulate it on that level. How would you like some
scientists hands in your genes? ; )
Well, that's my two cents anyway : )
Eric:
