Gary, This is certainly a worthwhile discussion. Of late I have become preoccupied with the remnants of forest at the small end of the scale. As a couple of general propositions I would suggest the size required to be an autopoietic forest as you have defined it would vary from forest type to forest type and it would also vary depending on the type of direct or indirect human impact it is facing. If for example a viable option could be discovered to practically inhibit the HWA to a mere nuisance status, in a hemlock dominated forest I would favor treatment no matter what the size of the forest. Because the scale of the impact of the organism is that of a broad geographic landscape, rather than on the scale of an individual forest.
The effects of human impacts, direct and indirect, encompass a broad range of characteristics. They affect the functioning of a forest in many different ways. In broad general terms the smaller the forest segment, the greater or faster these impacts affect the integrity of the system. If the goal is to achieve a forest that falls on the trajectory for that forest type, then the smaller the forest the more aggressive the measures needed to maintain the forest along that path. At the smallest scale parcels, not only must the forest be managed to mitigate human impacts and edge effects, but elements may need to be replaced that are lost by circumstance. In a larger system replacements may come from elsewhere in the forest, while many smaller pockets are isolated from any natural replacement sources. As I said this is just a general concept, and I am sure many exceptions and arguments could be made where it would not apply, but it serves as starting point for consideration (for me at least.) Ed Frank "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert Farnsworth ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary A. Beluzo To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:23 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: New paper on wilderness management and climate change 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 dilemma. 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 "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert Farnsworth --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
