Bob: I can talk about early successional habitat and other issues several people have raised.
Ecosystem recovery from humans: Whether people are natural is not the issue: the earth will have to recover from human disturbance whether people are natural or not. Personally, I have never met an android or someone made from plastic, so I assume that all people are natural. However, we have displaced an extraordinary number of other species from their habitat and simplified most ecosystems. Based on species area curves and loss of habitat alone, we can expect most species to go extinct. This is not an issue for those species; they have no expectation of continuing. It is an issue for quality of life for people, should they continue to exist. Simplified ecosystems may produce more for a short time, but not in the long run. They are also less stable. But again, species other than humans have no expectation of stability. White pine trees don't care whether they live in a stable ecosystem, or even whether their population is stable over time, or whether they occupy a certain acreage. Those things only matter to people. Early successional habitat: There is no universally correct amount of early successional habitat. There is a historic range of variability in proportion of early, middle and late successional habitat, as well as stands in different stages of development, at the ecological section or subsection level within the hierarchical ecosystem classification system that is used by many--e.g. TNC. Successional stage is separate from developmental stage--successional stage refers to changes in species composition (i.e. early successional birch and aspen versus middle successional white pine and late successional hemlock), while development refers to stand structure (i.e. young relatively even aged hemlock after a windstorm levels the canopy, of middle aged stands that are becoming multi-aged, and old multi-aged stands). This depended on the frequency of disturbances such as wind and fire. Wind created stands in early stages of development, mostly of mid to late successional species, while fires either set succession and stand development back to the early stages (for high intensity fire, such as crown fire in pitch pine or boreal spruce and fir), or kept forest at the mid-successional stage (i.e. surface fires in white pine). For any given frequency of disturbances, and some knowledge of their effects on succession and development, one can calculate the expected proportions of the landscape in each stage of succession and development. This can then be compared to the existing landscape to see if there are any types that are greatly reduced or missing on the modern commercial landscape. We presume that landscapes managed close to the natural range of variability are more sustainable in terms of productivity and species richness, but with climate change this may not hold in the future. We have done this for all of the ecological sections of MN. In the boreal forests of the Border Lakes subsection, dominance of the landscape by early successional species is the norm, whereas in other areas early successional forest constitute only 1% of the landscape (ie. areas with northern hardwoods). My guess for western MA is that the natural disturbance regime would lead to a large majority of the landscape dominated by old multi-aged stands of mid-to-late successional species, with a smaller propotion of even-aged mid to late successional species stands resulting from blowdowns caused by hurricanes, thunderstorms and tornadoes. There would be a few small areas of early successional habitat as a result of blowdowns that burned, but such a percentage would probably by tiny. Certain landscapes might have also supported multi-aged mid successional oak/pine forest maintained by repeated surface fires. Lee [email protected] wrote: > Gary, > > Very important points. I hope we will continue discussing this topic. > Thanks for jumping into this critically important topic. Below are > some of my thoughts on the subject of managing forests for specific > outcomes. > > Folks who manage forests for reasons that we all tacitly approve, or > at least accept, I think sometimes are unduly/unfairly criticized by > the environmental community, just for their management orientation. We > all are the beneficiaries of management activities at one time or > another. That said, the problem I see is that many of the advocates of > wide-spread forest management is that they often come to believe that > they are making improvements on the natural world - certainly the > forested part of it. Here I don't speak of restoration efforts or > combating forest pathogens, or for clearly stated and limited > objectives, but management with a clear timber and/or wildlife > objective presented t the public as beneficial to the forest. This is > where the danger (and sometimes deception) lies. For example, by > adopting the belief that one can manage for old growth, one > immediately starts down a slippery path. One chooses a few species and > a few characteristics to focus on and blots out the rest. Managing for > a small subset of species in an ecosystem leads to the delusion that > nature is being adequately mimicked sufficiently to allow us to > substitute human-managed forest for nature-controlled forests. It is a > case of having our cake and eating it too. Academics can get caught up > in this approach also. There is an element of ego involved. > > When I checked the DLIA project for its progress in identifying > species in the Great Smoky Mountains NP, above the microbial level, > they stated that over 12,000 species had been identified and that the > final number would likely be between 50,000 and 100,000. Taking where > the presently are, that is a 12 followed by three zeros! Wow! How does > one manage for 12,000 species? > > Presently, there are members of two committees sanctioned by DCR to > study our forests and "vision" for the future. A couple of them have > apoplexy when DCR reserves of over 100,000 acres are even mentioned. > They foolishly believe that they can manage for any set of old growth > characteristics that we want. But whar do we want? Can we list them > all and be thorough. Not by a long shot. > > Last week I was on the side of Todd Mountain with ENTS members Julia > Darcey and Jennifer Berglund. I was showing them an area of old > growth. Beyond its visual appeal, I silently asked myself, do we know > even half the species growing here? If we decided to manage the area, > what would be be managing for and why? Fortunately, the area is in the > 9th Forest Reserve. So, managing isn't on the table, but if it were, > what would we be focusing our attentions on and why? > > This brings up the rather shallow concept of managing for "early > successional habitat". I would like to ask Lee if he would discuss > that concept a little for members of the list. He addressed the topic > at a recent presentation he made in Agawam, MA. > > Lee, you're up my friend. Your ENTS family needs to hear your take on > managing for early successional habitat. > > Bob > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary A. Beluzo" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:47:19 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Autopoietic Forests and Forest Patch Management > > It happened with one significant event: AGRICULTURE. Agriculture > 10,000 years ago brought with it settlement, food surpluses, division > of labor, and mass consumerism. It also brought a dichotomy. Plants > and animals that were cultivated and domesticated were "good" and > those that were outside the area of settlement were "bad". The > concept of "WILDERness" came into being because settlers isolated > themselves from the world around them. This is were the great schism > between humans and nature began. > > On the naturalness continuum, that which is made/regulated/managed by > man is "artificial" or "0" on the scale and those ecosystems which > have not been significantly disturbed by HUMANS are close to a "10" on > the naturalness scale. What is the fundamental difference? HUMAN > systems are simplified, MANaged, and steered by a concsious, external > entity whereas NATURAL systems are complex, autopoietic, and steered > from within by an unconscious, collective wisdom encoded in the > community's DNA. > > Gary > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Steve Galehouse wrote: > > ENTS > > When did we humans decide to become separated from the natural > scheme of things?--we, or our predecessors, have been here as long > as there has been life on Earth, in a continuum.Perhaps as Pogo > said"We've met the enemy, and they is us", but we are as much a > part of nature as any other creature; plant, bacteria, fungus, > etc. Earth can't "recover' from us because we are as much part of > Earth as Earth is a part of us. Deep down I feel all these alien > species intrusions are just natural range expansions, optimizing > whatever method is available to the organism. > > Steve > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Barry Caselli > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > That's already been explained. > > --- On *Sun, 10/25/09, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > /<[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>/* wrote: > > > From: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Autopoietic Forests and Forest Patch > Management > To: "ENTSTrees" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Sunday, October 25, 2009, 8:04 AM > > > > Ed, > > I don't mean to get too far off topic here, but is > autopoiesis a term > that is being used often in the forestry and/or ecology > literature? I > was introduced to the term a few years ago in studying > cognitive > science through reading the work of Evan Thompson and > Francisco > Varela... I didn't realize it had come to be used more > broadly. Are > you using it to mean a self-sustaining, self-creating > system, or just > simply a natural/undisturbed patch of forest? > > > Mike > > > > > On Oct 25, 11:32 am, "Edward Frank" <[email protected] > > <http://us.mc544.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Gary, > > > > I wonder if when looking at these systems if there > should not be a distinction made between your > autopoietic(natural) systems and artificial (managed) and > systems that have been impacted or disturbed indirectly by > outside human activities, but are not actually being > managed by humans. For example consider some of the > islands in the Allegheny River Islands Wilderness. Most > are nearly pristine in terms of development and timbering, > but they are otherwise severely disturbed in terms of the > ecosystem. Instead of the normal trajectory you are > envisioning, this path has been replaced by massive > growths of invasive species. On Thompson Island the > southern end of the island in the ate summer of fall is a > impassable mass of Japanese knotweed, large areas are > covered by multiflora roses, former native grasslands have > been replaced by reed canary grass. I think these types > of impacts are different in character fro those found in > actively managed lands and different from natural systems > that have not been so severely impacted and are exhibiting > an ecosystem dominated by native plants and animals. Other > examples of non-managed impacts can be cited. > > > > Edward 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 > > By the way, I consider NATURE to be the collective > genome of all living systems and their environment. > NATURE is self-creating and self-regulating. We > distinguish humans from nature because NATURE is a > complex, dynamic system controlled by unconscious > processes, by natural selection. We appreciate NATURE > because it is NOT controlled by us...it is "WILD". I > wouldn't consider a ZOO to be an expression of nature or a > natural place since humans decide which animal reproduces > with which other and humans are controlling the > environment of these animals. All of us on this list > intuitively know the difference between a zoo and nature, > a natural forest and a managed plantation. The difficulty > comes in placing each forest on the > NATURAL.............................ARTIFICIAL continuum. > > > > Gary A. Beluzo > > Professor of Environmental Science > > Division of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics > > Holyoke Community College > > 303 Homestead Avenue > > Holyoke, MA 01040 > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
