>Gene GeRue wrote:
>> I have a friend who is taking the next step, improvement forestry. He
>> low-grades, that is, he only cuts trees that are imperfect, leaving the
>> finest specimens to spread their seeds.
Doug Fields:
>My concern would be a decrease in genetic diversity over time. It's
>possible that strains with less-than-perfect forms have resistance to
>diseases or pests that the "finest" specimens lack. Your friend could
>be selecting against certain traits that could prove beneficial in the
>future. Plant breeders still go to wild stock for genes to provide
>desirable characteristics for plants long domesticated.
Here in the southern Missouri Ozarks, with thousands of oaks of different
types per tract, genetic diversity in a forest is assured. The trees that
have resisted the various and many diseases and still are strong and
growing well would seem to be those that in fact have the genetic
resistance and are most likely to pass that on to succeeding generations.
>Furthermore, the imperfect trees are often the ones having what we would
>call defects, such as weak crotches that eventually result in cavities,
>that likely benefit other organisms. I much prefer a mixed forest
>containing many imperfect specimens to the monotony of an "improved"
>stand, from both an aesthetic and forest health standpoint. I'm sure
>that almost any forester would disagree, but a forest ecologist might
>not.
Friend also leaves den trees. He leaves lots of trees. My point was that he
is doing the reverse of the high-grading that has diminished the quality of
present second- and third-growth forests.
Gene GeRue, author,
How To Find Your Ideal Country Home: A Comprehensive Guide
http://www.ruralize.com/
