next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01D14AD7.B5AA5C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don=E2=80=99t be discouraged, Nick! Everyone is making important points, a= nd if excessive, unnecessary micro-analysis leads to some stuff not being r= ead, so be it. I think it=E2=80=99s better to err on the side of including= unimportant stuff, rather than of excluding important stuff. J I think Doug=E2=80=99s comment about the need for a policy on biomass burni= ng is spot-on, and will raise with TREPA, of which I=E2=80=99m Exec. Direct= or. I=E2=80=99ll probably end up suggesting something to the effect that b= iomass burning is acceptable to the extent that it does not deplete natural= resources. Howzzat?? From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] = On Behalf Of Nicholas Hill Sent: January 9, 2016 10:10 AM To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca Subject: Re: Fwd: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry David It's exasperating to never get anywhere to encounter argument for its own s= ake seemingly not directed anywhere but always under the guise of going aft= er truth. People on this Nature NS site should expect that we are not wast= ing their time and should not want to relegate the site to the junk box as = they do. We can all pick arguments and go after the holes of everything..COP21, mult= iculturalism, trade unions, evidence for acid rain and calcium depletion, u= tility of parks and protected areas..whatever. Sometimes there is a point, = other times however, it seems the point is diluted by the fact that reasona= ble conclusions are undermined by endless microanalysis that makes us want = to throw up our hands and say maybe Nature NS cannot the place for useful dis= cussion leading to conclusion. I was starting to argue again, to make straightforward ecological points, t= o provide general patterns, but you have exhausted this thread as you may h= ave exhausted others on this list serve. Nick On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:20 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com= > wrote: Hi Doug & All, Jan 8, 2016 I am partial to evidence based conclusions. I have yet to see any exper= imental results based on NS material. All I have received are fragments of = the Gospel according to Nick & David P. If the evidence is so great and obv= ious why is it being kept a secret ? The example which I quoted recently, and not explained, still has me wo= ndering if the fuss about drastic Ca depletion is more than a fad in some c= ases and perhaps all cases. This was from Table 2 in Lawerence and Huntingt= on; given without background information. A site classified as highly sensitive to calcium depletion (Coweeta) ha= s 1370 kg/ha exchangeable Ca, total Ca of 11500 kg/ha total Ca and Net Calc= ium depletion of 6.6 kg/ha/year. So exchangeable Ca, assuming no recycling = from Mixed Hardwood litter and foliage leaching which is of course false [M= ost Ca in such litter would be released within a year], would be sufficient= for only 207 years. Note to self: urgent; order a truckload of lime to be = delivered in 100 years. And Total Ca, in some undisclosed fraction of the rooting zone, of whic= h the major portion would be bound in minerals [and such weathering would b= e speeded by the acidity of acid ppt.] would be sufficient once released t= o last only 1700 years. I am partial to free and open evidence-based discussion. This latest mo= ve; an official Nature NS policy sounds like a move to muzzle discussion an= d replace it by worship of some ad-hoc form of Religion. If that in fact p= roves to be the case then Naturens will wither to a bird watch forum or som= e dust on a cobweb. In one of my recent e-mails I indicated the merits of research into thi= s and many other related questions. That bounced somewhat less than a dead = cat. The will be many Science Graduates in the near future with no prospect = of a job. And in my view there are a multitude of questions to be investiga= ted. Why are the self-appointed High Priests of Nature NS so fearful of tru= th being laid bare ? Nick, as came to light recently, I knew more about the history of charc= oal forests in your UK area than you did. Is it perhaps possible that I kno= w almost as much as you do about barrens in my backyard ? You speak of "ove= rharvest transforming landscape into lower equilibrium states (e.g. shrub b= arrens here and in NL)", Do you have documentary evidence of when these barrens carried a crop o= f trees and when they were cut ? Where exactly are these barrens ? Have you= examined for traces of charcoal well below the litter layer by flotation ?= What textures and soil depths are represented ? Good soil or good highway = fill too shallow to bother mining ? For example, the large barren west of the Costley homestead on Route 12= (just this side of the Salmontail River) was referred to by one of the Cos= tleys (Milton or Truman) as "the fire barrens". It goes back to the mid-180= 0s if not earlier. And it seems likely that these barrens had help getting = and remaining in that state. All Lowbush Blueberries were harvested wild in= those days and those living in Nova Scarcity needed to use all possible ed= ibles. When my father was young [late 1800s, early 1900s] he and my grandfathe= r (as I learned by chance from some Costley70+ years later) used to drive o= ut (horse and buggy; by star, moon or slack reins both ways) every year to = pick blueberries and return to Cambridge, Kings Co with a year's supply. Hi= s father David Costley was famous as a bear hunter and elderly when he was = decorated by Queen Victoria (early 1900s ?) for the many Bear hides he had = provided. One can be reasonably sure that Blueberries were the bear draw. As recently as 1960 there was an area near Aldershot which used to catc= h fire at a convenient time so there would be a renewal of the plants and b= etter crops for a few years. Vaccinium a. is not shade tolerant so decent s= tands would tend to develop where light coarse soil texture could support o= nly scattered Pines, runty Betula populifolia and the like. And in addition to the fires set in relatively recent times by intent, = fires started by lightening or careless use of fire would be expected to ad= d to the roster over time. And before European settlers arrived there were = Indians for 8,000 to 10,000 (?) years and it would be strange indeed it the= y over time did not have fire barrens until the berry plants played out. To= survive here, using stone age culture, I expect that on average they were = a good deal more intelligent than the average modern University Prof. so th= ey surely would have used fire and made good use of these berries. I am