next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
------=_Part_3979060_217300509.1451217082431
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The studies/modelling by=C2=A0=C2=A0Ouimet,=C2=A0Clair & others related to =
acid rain' =C2=A0& Noseworthy's thesis examining forest biomass harvesting =
include calculation of "Exceedances"which=C2=A0occur when the removal of ba=
sic cations by acid rain exceed the additionsthough atmospheric deposition =
and weathering of rocks....
The Noseworthy research, =C2=A0incorporated moredetailed local information =
than the Ouillet et al.study and made an upward revision of theestimate of =
the area of Nova Scotia mapped in exceedance from 39.9% to 73%. This issimp=
ly not good news for Nova Scotia: even with no harvesting, soil fertility u=
nder 73%of our forests will continue to decline because of acid rain.
Noseworthy presents results for calculations of sustainable harvest rates a=
cross Kejimkujik National Park for harvesting with and without base-cation =
depletions....* Although not specifically discussed in this context, the re=
sults can beinterpreted as indicating that limited selective harvest scheme=
s, but not clearcuts, wouldbe sustainable for most of that area. Such a con=
clusion would likely apply also to theBowater St. Margaret=E2=80=99s Bay La=
nds which have similar geology, and indeed probably tomost of Nova Scotia f=
orests.
(*There is no assumption that there would be commercial harvesting in Keji =
- details for Keji but not otherareas are apparently given because there ar=
e no commercial interests in it as it is a protected area; alsoexisiting da=
ta on outflow of nutrients in streams allowed some validation of the method=
ology.)
More at =C2=A0http://wrweo.ca/wrweo2014/posts/2014/LetterWRWEOFeb12.pdf
=C2=A0
=20
From: David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry
=20
Hi Nick & All=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Dec 27, 2015=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 A key question in this di=
scussion is what fraction of soil calcium is under consideration ? Is this =
exchangeable Ca and soil was sampled to what depth ? =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Yt,=
DW, Kentville=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0----- Original Message -----=
=20
From: Nicholas Hill To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca Sent: Saturday, December=
26, 2015 7:30 PM Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry=20
Steve,
Bill Freedman had these data and Garbary and I referred to his paper w Mora=
sh 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 soi=
l calcium in new England,=C2=A0 a similar harvest removed 27% of soil calci=
um in Nova Scotia. This story has another Dal connection: Barry Goldsmith, =
forest ecologist who worked at Dal before Bill Freedman. Barry (FB Goldsmit=
h, 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 yea=
rs 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 h=
arvests have diminished. So with 27% loss of calcium per harvest=C2=A0 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 So what? Dav=
id Garbary and my finding (Botany in 2011) showed that NS has a group of ra=
re Appalachian herbs that are restricted to our highest calcium forests; fl=
oodplains, even though in Appalachia they grow on upland slopes. With clima=
te change plant distributions will move north but only if we have not exhau=
sted our soils. We should be able to do something with these data. Nick On=
Dec 24, 2015 4:52 PM, "Stephen Shaw" <srshaw@dal.ca> wrote:
=20
A question regarding Fred & Peter's point about loss of nutrients.
In a natural deciduous forest of any type that has not been harvested at al=
l, for a 100-year old tree (say), what proportion of the total recyclable n=
utrients per tree-area will have come from the accumulated annual leaf fall=
(+ fallen dead branches + feasting caterpillar, squirrel and woodpecker tu=
rds, etc), and what proportion will be returned only after the woody trunk =
and main branches have finally died, fallen down and decayed at age 100?
If the first is dominant then the argument about loss of nutrients by loggi=
ng and tree removal is not strictly valid, whereas if the second dominates,=
it is.
I'm sure somebody must have looked at this carefully, and for different typ=
es of forest and different soil types.=C2=A0 Are the proportions known?
Steve
________________________________________
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on beha=
lf of Fred Schueler [bckcdb@istar.ca]
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 12:28 PM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry
Quoting John and Nhung <nhungjohn@eastlink.ca>:
> Yeah, I get the impression that the main problem with the Point Tupper
> monster is its size.=C2=A0 A smaller operation might have fit in quite ni=
cely.
> Of course, the NewPage surprise added to the mess, but mess it is, and I
> hope the government ad the operators can ramp back its biomass consumptio=
n
> to a more sensible, sustainable scale.
* I was crafting a more complex reply to this thread, but I'll just
say that the problem with biomass harvesting from forests is to get
the nutrients removed in the wood back into the forest so successive
generation of trees can grow at a decent rate. We tried to deal with
this in our county forest here but certain foresters reacted so
negatively to the question of fertilization that the advisory
committee was illegally terminated as a consequence - but here's our
discussion of the nutrient question in forests that are having wood
removed - http://pinicola.ca/limnutr.htm - on sand and limestone we've
got very low intrinsic levels of nutrients, but the problem exists in
all woods if they're intensively exploited.
fred.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Fingers crossed for a mild winter, with minimum demand for firewood!=C2=
=A0 All
> this tells me we still need to take solar heat and other renewable source=
s
> more seriously.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca=
]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Shaw
> Sent: December 24, 2015 11:59 AM
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herr