Don,
I don’t know why the oak plantings failed but as you suggest it probably
was from deer browsing despite the great reduction in the deer
population on Prescott Peninsula.
I don’t agree that 1 – 3 acre clearings happen naturally all the time in
New England and I’ve traveled and hiked thousands and thousands of miles
all over my north country. How come I never see any? Well it’s because
checkerboarding the landscape with 1 – 3 acre “patch cuts” mimics no
natural disturbance I know of. Sure we get occasional microbursts that
might blow down a few acres here and there but they are rare. Rarer
still are tornadoes and hurricanes.
Our forest cutting regulations are now under review here in
Massachusetts and hopefully will soon be updated with the necessary
reforms. One critical issue is the definition of what a clearcut is.
Should the maximum size of a “patch cut” (or minimum size of a clearcut)
be ½ acre, 1 acre, 2 acres, or as some want 3 acres? Patch cuts are just
other words for group selection which is used to create patches of
forest of different ages. In the Dictionary of Forestry, it says that
the width of groups is commonly approximately twice the height of the
mature trees with smaller openings good for tolerant species and larger
openings better for more intolerant regeneration. So let’s say the
height of mature trees is 100 feet. Double that and multiply by two to
get a square and you come up with 40,000 square feet or about one acre.
So I think a patch cut should be defined as anything less than one acre
but I will be pushing for ½ acre because the other side will be pushing
for 3 acres. From an operational point of view yes it is much easier for
a forester to mark patches to wipe out and for the logger to cut those
patches without having to worry about damaging the residual stand. And
that’s why we are seeing more of them not because it’s a good thing for
the forest or that it “mimics” any kind of natural disturbance. For my
clients, I always use single tree selection and small group selection
because aesthetics is most often their prime concern and checkerboarding
their woodlots with big holes wouldn’t be too appealing to them.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DON BERTOLETTE
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: old growth and wolves
Mike-
How do you think the oak plantings would do if the "1-3
acre clearcuts" were fenced in?
If the answer was poorly, then I'd suspect that it was
the "hideous" clearcuts.
If the answer was well, then I'd suggest that deer were
the problem, not the clearcut.
One to three acre clearings happen naturally all the
time in New England. If the forest management attempts to mimic them
also mimic the relatively low level of natural soil disturbance from say
wind events, then it becomes a matter of aesthetics. But the aesthetic
difference between the disturbances caused by say a small (1-3 acre)
localized downburst and a carefully done 1-3 acre patch cut is probably
not worth quibbling over.
Having said that, I'm not sure how either scenario
provides an immediate water quality improvement.
Almost everything is scalar...3-5 years in the life time
of a forest is a blink of an eye, once regeneration gets underway, the
forest adjusts, the eye should too...
-Don
PS:Notice how the use of 'clearcut' and 'hideous' stand
out in our otherwise 'not value-laden' conversation...
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: old growth and wolves
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:11:28 -0500
Don,
I worked for a few weeks in the Prescott Peninsula at
the Quabbin Watershed about 8 years ago doing Timber Stand Improvement
work. I’d cut small black birch poles to release white pine saplings.
Otherwise you’d have a sea of black birch there because of the history
of deer over browsing which also extirpated the oak. I’ve never seen so
much black birch with a complete absence of oak. So the effect of the
over browsing is essentially permanent. I don’t see oak ever getting
established there again – they tried some planting but it all failed.
The management at the 55,000 acre Quabbin watershed has
changed significantly over the last 4 years or so. Whereas prior they
did mostly area wide thinnings, they are now doing more “patch cuts”
(1-3 acre clearcuts). Not only does it look hideous, but it is not
necessary to protect water quality from any future catastrophic
hurricane (by supposedly creating a more resilient multi-aged forest).
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DON BERTOLETTE
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 4:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: old growth and
wolves
Mike-
I recall assisting in research at UMASS
in the 90's that investigated deer browse effect in the Quabbin
Reservoir watershed...similarly, fenced enclosures of oak regeneration
were compared with those outside (subject to deer browse) and the
difference was certainly statistically significant...a positive spin on
this was that oaks so browsed and then protected, developed more
established root systems and grew well and fast.
A quick aside, in my wanderings in the
woods at Grand Canyon National Park, I ran across fenced enclosures from
the 30's and 40's designed to study the impact of elk and deer on the
understory. Had to protect them from planned control burns, as they
were old enough to fall under the Antiquities Act...;>)
-Don
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: old growth and
wolves
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 16:28:56 -0500
Russ,
Excellent article! So in order to get
tree seedling regeneration you need to introduce the wolf or introduce
hunting. This is a common problem all across the country especially in
the east with the abundance of white tailed deer. I saw an experiment in
Wells (Maine) National Estuarine Sanctuary where they fenced off areas
to keep deer away and the result was half decent hardwood seedling
regeneration whereas the unfenced areas were choked with invasive and
non-native Japanese barberry. Another reason to shoot the deer!
There was talk about introducing the
wolf to Maine which didn’t please the locals. I remember when they tried
to re-introduce caribou to Baxter State Park but unfortunately that
noble experiment failed.
Wolves may have already introduced
themselves to Maine from Canada. I have only had a few landowners (from
Bernardston and Warwick) in MA say they saw a wolf. But I’ve had at
least15 landowners over the years tell me they’ve seen a mountain lion.
Is it the supposedly extinct eastern cougar, migrants from the west, or
as most state wildlife officials like to say “escaped pets”?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] old growth and wolves
ENTS:
Seattle Times recently ran an
interesting article on reintroducing wolves in Olympic NP to stem the
damage to the old growth woods by elk.
Russ
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008667916_wolves25.ht
ml
Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award
surprises of all time on AOL Music.
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get
more ways to connect. Check it out.
<http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Faster_02
2009>
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to
connect. See how it works.
<http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks
_022009>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
