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