[NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry

Received-SPF: pass (kirk.glinx.com: authenticated connection) receiver=kirk.glinx.com; client-ip=208.103.231.4; helo=D58WQPH1; envelope-from=dwebster@glinx.com; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
From: "David & Alison Webster" <dwebster@glinx.com>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <8639F566A7E84B5E8E6F8562C8211B93@D58WQPH1> <CAOK1_GY4EM2hPUun3PS3h4xMAn_TH4k9dORHDfCqEHnmV3EbKg@mail.gmail.com> <33AC4B0E09D64ABA90BA94579FB65E2B@D58WQPH1> <CAOK1_GZOUunEO=+bhM4c7Ns+dUmMjywPA70utQaTEwKnQWgW=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 21:36:45 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

&gt; who pays for site 
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_1E82_01D145A5.AD9182D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Nick & All,                    Jan 2-3, 2016
    Yes, I agree. Side issues are all very interesting but the central =
one should have priority and this raises the question; "Just what is the =
central issue ?" It has been my experience when dealing with complex =
systems, and the overall topic of forest management rates as extremely =
complex, it is very important to keep an open mind until the coarse =
controls (those factors which have great impact) as opposed to the fine =
controls (those factors which have minor impact) can be identified with =
some certainty.=20

    And no offense to anyone involved, but if the article by Aaron =
Beswick is an unbiased account of the substance in Jamie's 42-page =
report then that document must have a very high BS content and I don't =
mean Biological Science. As I observed initially--"These biomass plants =
leave much to be desired and constructive criticism will hopefully lead =
to better context integration in future " but damming biomass as an =
energy source because mistakes were made, real or apparent, makes no =
more sense than damming the concept of Schooners because the Bluenose II =
project was botched.

    In the following three paragraphs you seem to have laid out a road =
map or dogma, call it what you will, which one must swallow as an =
initial step. All in due time but first I wish clarification of your =
e-mail of Dec. 26.
 Pasted below along with my initial question of Dec 27.

Start of Paste\\\\\\\\\\\\\
My question to the following was--

Hi Nick & All                                Dec 27, 2015
    A key question in this discussion is what fraction of soil calcium =
is under consideration ? Is this exchangeable Ca and soil was sampled to =
what depth ?=20
   =20
Yt, DW, Kentville
   =20


----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Nicholas Hill=20
  To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
  Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2015 7:30 PM
  Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry
Steve,
Bill Freedman had these data and Garbary and I referred to his paper w =
Morash as well as to a paper on a fractional analysis from New England. =
.conn..The take home message was that while biomass removal removed 13% =
of the soil calcium in new England,  a similar harvest removed 27% of =
soil calcium in Nova Scotia.

This story has another Dal connection: Barry Goldsmith, forest ecologist =
who worked at Dal before Bill Freedman. Barry (FB Goldsmith, we have =
lost touch) figured that on average NS forests had been cut over 3 =
times. This figure is about right if we take a harvest once every 80 =
years rate and we might increase this estimate (made in 1980) to 3.5 =
times cut taking into account we are 36 years past his time and that =
times between harvests have diminished.

So with 27% loss of calcium per harvest  and forests being cut over more =
that 3 times, we could make a calculation of:

A. Loss of Ca in NS forests (our cuts do not remove all biomass)
And=20
B. How much worse shape we are in in comparison w Connecticut=20

So what?

David Garbary and my finding (Botany in 2011) showed that NS has a group =
of rare Appalachian herbs that are restricted to our highest calcium =
forests; floodplains, even though in Appalachia they grow on upland =
slopes. With climate change plant distributions will move north but only =
if we have not exhausted our soils.=20

We should be able to do something with these data.

Nick

END OF PASTE\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
   =20
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Nicholas Hill=20
  To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
  Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 12:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry
  <snip>
  Back to the issue at hand:


  Our present use of forests in NS needs a better plan to preserve our =
natural history and we need a plan that takes into account that our =
forest soils have a naturally low calcium concentration,and that soil =
calcium levels have been reduced by acidification which is ongoing =
albeit at lower rates, that our forestry is taking calcium out of the =
landscape as bark and branches leaves the sites, and that we face a =
climatic shift which should usher in a diversity of the Appalachian =
Deciduous Forest species but this biodiversity shift may not take place =
in NS if our soils are unfit for species that come from higher calcium =
ecosystems.


  We need to look at our forested floodplains for here are the calcium =
conditions that can sustain the Appalachian Forest. These can be the =
starting nuclei for this communty and then good stewardship can enlarge =
these areas so they coalesce into migration pathways.


  And to Jamie's point that overall, a biomass burning based forestry is =
going to degrade all our forest types and that the lowest calcium =
forests along the Atlantic shore..the meguma terrane..will be walloped =
by any short rotation foreestry and will in some areas transform forest =
into a savannah in a matrix of ericaeous scrub.=20


  Nick


  ,=20


  On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 8:03 PM, David & Alison Webster =
<dwebster@glinx.com> wrote:

    Hi Nick & All,                        Jan 1, 2016
        The idea that---"England....was charcoaling most of its =
forests."  for the reduction of iron and the use of coke prevented =
widespread deforestation is a widespread myth but is at variance with =
the facts.=20
        The large ironworks which developed for volume production, e.g. =
casting of large cannon were not at all portable so they had to rely on =
nearby forests and take care to not deplete them, as outlined below
    From: http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/charcoal_history.cfm

    "Although historians have often considered that the excessive =
felling of timber to fuel the iron industries resulted in woodland loss, =
it is now recognised that this theory is wholly incorrect. The iron =
industry was long term in nature and iron works jealously guarded their =
supplies. Furthermore, most of the timber used in the charcoal kiln was =
of coppice origin. Coppice material was of regular size, was easy to =
handle and load and required minimal recutting. Woods close to the iron =
works survived because their place as fuel providers to the iron