Don: I think this topic deserves a full discussion. In a large enough landscape where forests have enough interiority to resist anthropogenic fire, pests, and disease, I would say yes, PRESERVATION only. In our small fragmented natural forests of the East it becomes a dilemna. I would ask these questions:
How large does a forest (for a particular forest type let's say OAK- HICKORY) need to be in in the East to be "autopoietic"? And what about edge/interior ratio? I define an AUTOPOIETIC FOREST as a forest that has the degree of naturalness (habitat and niche complexity) to continue moving along natural trajectories for the forest type. What kind of management would be required in other forests with a larger edge/interior ratio and degree of naturalness to maintain current natural trajectories? In other words, if a minimum size for an autopoietic forest is 5,000 acres then what would need to be done to maintain a forest in its current trajectory if the acreage is 2,500, 1,000, 500 etc. This is an interesting question and one which I am sure some folks on this list would have an opinion. This will become increasingly more important in the future as more and more existing forest becomes fragmented and invaded by anthropogenic disturbances. Gary A. Beluzo Professor of Environmental Science Division of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Holyoke Community College 303 Homestead Avenue Holyoke, MA 01040 [email protected] 413 552-2445 On Oct 24, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Don Bertolette wrote: > Gary- > Absolute preservation? No stopping wildfires, pestilence, pathogens, > natural or otherwise? > > > Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS... > > On Oct 24, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Gary A Beluzo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And would the legal protection be against development AND >> management? I am beginning to develop a John Muir attitude that we >> have denigrated so much landscape that the tiny measley scraps >> remaining deserve absolute preservation before those are >> rationalized away by insouciant and ignorant bureaucraps. >> >> Gary >> >> Prof. Gary A. Beluzo >> Systems Ecologist >> Holyoke Comm College >> 303 Homestead Ave >> Holyoke, MA. 01040 >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Joseph Zorzin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Right- well, some of us involved with the "vision process" for the >>> state have said the reserves must be protected by law- regardless >>> of what you call them. The debate as to how much ranges from the >>> current 20% to 100%. >>> >>> Joe >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Gary A Beluzo >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 5:31 PM >>> Subject: [ENTS] Re: New paper on wilderness management and climate >>> change >>> >>> >>> Lee and Joe, >>> >>> I hate to keep repeating this cry but why is the state NOT >>> considerIng >>> any PRESERVES and duping the public with RESERVES? Seems like there >>> should be some land that is preserved as a "control" for all future >>> forestry experiments. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> Prof. Gary A. Beluzo >>> Systems Ecologist >>> Holyoke Comm College >>> 303 Homestead Ave >>> Holyoke, MA. 01040 >>> >>> >>> On Oct 23, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Lee Frelich <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > Joe: >>> > >>> > Yes, more reserved forest will help mitigate climate change >>> because >>> > forest that is not harvested will sequester and store more carbon. >>> > >>> > Reserved forest provides the only opportunity to observe how >>> forests >>> > respond to climate change by itself, with a lower level of >>> multiple >>> > stresses (of which harvesting would be one). >>> > >>> > They also are the controls for the long term experiment we are >>> > conducting by harvesting the forest. Forests did not evolve to >>> > produce >>> > commercial products, and it has not been proven that harvest >>> can be >>> > sustainable, or if so can, at what level. >>> > >>> > Reserved forests are more likely to end up having multi-age >>> structure, >>> > which is more resilient to most types of change and disturbance. >>> > >>> > Lee >>> > >>> > Joseph Zorzin wrote: >>> >> Lee, I'm printing out that now- it's on the site. But, though I >>> >> haven't yet read it I have a question for you. >>> >> >>> >> Here in Mass. we're debating what percentage of the state's >>> roughly >>> >> half million acres of state forest land should be in reserves. >>> There >>> >> of course many different arguments pro and con for different >>> amounts. >>> >> >>> >> But focusing in on your research: do you believe that holding >>> more >>> >> rather than less acreage in reserves is a way of mitigating >>> the long >>> >> term effects on the forests from climate change? >>> >> >>> >> If you have time to reply- please "reply to all". >>> >> >>> >> Joe >>> >> >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> *From:* Lee Frelich <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >>> >> > >>> >> *Sent:* Friday, October 23, 2009 11:27 AM >>> >> *Subject:* [ENTS] New paper on wilderness management and >>> climate >>> >> change >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ENTS: >>> >> >>> >> The last of my three papers on climate change to be >>> published this >>> >> year >>> >> came out yesterday: >>> >> >>> >> Frelich, L.E. and P.B. Reich. 2009. Wilderness conservation >>> in an >>> >> era of >>> >> global warming and invasive species: a case study from >>> Minnesot >>> >> a’s >>> >> Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. /Natural Areas >>> Journal/ 29: >>> >> 385-393. >>> >> >>> >> We should have a pdf on the website later today: >>> >> http://forestecology.cfans.umn.edu/publications.html >>> >> >>> >> Lee >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > > >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
