Ed: Wow, I had no idea that it would take that much and that long to have an effect. I admit I really don't know much about the subject, having read some, perhaps very unscientific articles on the subject a long time ago. I remember reading one about the genetic degradation of longleaf pine quite a while ago--maybe 20 years or so--and it may have been in American Forests, not a bastion of highly regarded peer reviewed research.
The last article I read that would have any bearing on the subjest was about attempts to select and breed a superior strain of black cherry, and the thrust of the article was that such attempts have failed, maybe because of the genetic complexity of the species. If you can refer me to any research on the subject, I would be very appreciative. --Gaines -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 1/6/10, Edward Frank <[email protected]> wrote: > Gaines, > > Basically, No you are incorrect. In order to change the genetic footprint > of the species you would need to cut only those superior trees, kill all of > their offspring, and not cut any of the poorer quality trees, over the > course of tens of generations. Essentially all of the big trees in a stand > were cut, so there was no selection. The genetics of the big trees having > been there for hundreds of years would be represented in the smaller trees > that were too small to cut. Even after the initial trees were removed, > those trees with superior genetics would tend to out-compete those that were > the offspring of poorer trees and would dominate the second growth forest. > If you did this a hundred times you would not get a genetic drift, .unless > you were targeting a specific genetic definable trait while at the same time > leaving all of the other competing traits intact, People have suggested > this before, and the idea is simply wrong. You can't change the genetic > footprint by cutting all of the big pines, and it is unlikely that targeted > high grading would even have a noticeable effect without dozens of > generations of repetition. There are specific environmental effects that > can cause a genetic drift, but not generic logging operations. > > Ed Frank >
