next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
&g
Hi Donna & All, Jan 11, 2016
When I suggested to dad, when I was about 9, that we thin that small
area rather than clear cut it for farmland I was not parroting something I
had been taught, just using common sense and a desire to save them from the
plow.
And subsequently I have thinned trees to good effect; always in the
context where by chance way more trees have become established than can
amount to anything.
What is so wonderful about growing beanpoles with a tiny candle of green
up top which predict an early death ?
One should be careful to not swallow conventional wisdom. Even the
conventional wisdom which states that "conventional wisdom is always wrong"
is clearly incorrect. To be correct It should read "conventional wisdom is
usually wrong".
As you say "Thinning trees is done mostly to speed up growth and
yields." And to keep trees from crowding each other to an early death. Why
is better growth undesirable ? Birds to not nest all year and one can
exercise caution.
You say on the one hand that "we should learn to wait and be patient."
but on the other hand wish to eradicate Glossy Buckthorn in woodland. If you
are patient it will be smothered by forest trees and meanwhile will decrease
overstocking by forest tree seedlings and decrease leaching loss of
nutrients which can take place even in selective cuts when there are small
glades. So it, like Pin Cherry, is a blessing where cutting has taken place.
Why should anyone object if some decide to thin trees on their own land
? Why is it so deplorable to note that it can aid survival and increase
growth if done where and when applicable ?
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Crossland" <dcrossland@eastlink.ca>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 10:43 PM
Subject: RE: [NatureNS] re Red Herring & Forestry
<snip>
> About thinning: What I've been reading in this thread is an old school,
> 'agronomist' perspective still widely taught in forestry, and a strongly
> held mantra with foresters, but one not generally adopted by
> biologists/ecologists/naturalists who are taught to think more broadly on
> the incredible complexities of forest ecology. Thinning trees is done
> mostly to speed up growth and yields. The objective to cut down trees
> sooner. There are stacks of research papers on this, but some of the more
> recent ones question the whole practice of thinning and its economic
> practicality. Thinning is also highly detrimental to forest songbirds,
> and
> many folks will admit that they knowingly destroy countless nests while
> thinning during springtime. Nonetheless, I hear all sorts of
> justifications
> for the practice, but the truth is that nature does just fine on her own,
> and we should learn to wait and be patient. She'll grow the best trees.
> (I
> believe this was Mary's well-stated point of view also.) I've got at
> least
> one research paper that concluded that thinning a spruce stand simply
> acted
> as a vector for fungal infection through nearly the entire stand. (I can
> reference it, but no time to find it now.) Natural forests will self-thin
> in their own time, deciding on their own which is the strongest individual
> genetic stock to survive in each microhabitat situation, and they don't
> need
> help from us. However, the forester knocking on your door and wanting to
> cut your wood will spin a different story, often alarmist about the great
> need to thin, or simply (usually) to cut down all the trees in your
> woodlot
> as a great favour to you before disaster strikes ("the sky is falling"
> analogy).
>><snip>
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects