next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> likely at least 3 litres of pits in total in North Alton. I am --000000000000662359058fd622a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Typo Sorry...a shift in mycorrhizal type has been noted away from ectomycorrhizae to arbuscular mycorrhizae is said to accompany frequent clearcutting that disrupts the humus root associations. It goes against a mimicking of nature to try to be tidy and take it up and burn it. Why would we think it would not go against forest process? N On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:00 AM Nick Hill, <fernhillns@gmail.com> wrote: > A key difference between a known old growth area (eg Abraham's lake, > sporting lake and Cape chignecto) is , yes, the big trees uneven aged snags > and downed logs, but as much, the depth of humus. > > Our observations were spotty it was long ago but we went into old growths > and then "working" landscapes which had been cut over repeatedly and > collected soils for microbial characterization. The hypothesis was the old > forests might have stress tolerant actinomycetes that could have useful > antibiotics in their long term struggles against fungi and other microbes. > > We never unfortunately got that far but the working landscapes had > virtually no organic covering over he mineral soil while the old growths > had deep humus. > > With forestry, that humus layer will e reduced but it should be valued > because of it is enriched in many forest nutrients..N P Ca..that are > deficient in the mineral layer. The humus is also the seat of the > mycorrhizae and other microbes we may not understand. Forests are said to > have u undergone a shift in my original types in response to the break up > of this humus root layer. We could do ecological forestry and that would > mean working with the key ecological processes..decomposition > mineralization mycorrhizal associations.. and doing our best to conserve > the humus layer. > > Ecological forestry means no Amazonia like burn piles, no glyphosate which > wipes out early regen and amphibians and plant biodiversity, and attention > to mimicking forest processes. It would be excitng to be involved in this > post Lahey planning. > > Stay tuned and stay vigilant > > Nick > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 10:55 PM David Webster, <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: > >> Hi Donna & All, >> >> Here I am being the devil's advocate again--- but I have problems with >> the following passage. >> >> "Most of our forests presently require centuries of recovery just to >> nurse depleted soils back to health from fires, acid rain, and >> clearcutting. One thing each of us can do is encourage hardwood growth, >> with deep rooting structures that help improve soil conditions." >> >> First of all have most of our forests been burned ? If not then they >> don't need centuries to recover from fires,. >> >> Acid rain is a different story entirely. The LRT hype has been >> tucked into a back room somewhere but acid rain is ongoing and, even if >> it had stopped, recovery of naturally acidic soils in a podsol region, >> from the effects of acid rain is a pipe dream. >> >> Failure of government to act has been a great disappointment. >> Salmon and Trout have taken a hit and there is no excuse for this other >> than irresponsible government and perhaps the notion that with time >> everything will be nice again. High soil acidity and exchangeable Al go >> hand in hand. Consequently one may expect the Al concentration of >> groundwater, entering natural waterways from acidic uplands to increase >> as soil acidity increases; unless the soils are derived from and >> underlain by basic rocks such as limestone or Basalt so the acidity of >> leachates can be moderated in transit. >> >> In my view it should be standard practice to apply agricultural >> grade limestone to all clearcut areas at a rate of 20 tons per acre. To >> clearcuts because application of limestone using soil based equipment is >> prohibitive by air and clearcuts make application by ground equipment >> possible. >> >> Apart from perhaps physical damage when soils are puddled by >> traffic when the soil is too wet or eroded along wheel tracks (In the >> 70's I saw the impact hauling wood out with narrow tires on wet soil; >> ruts eroded more than 3'deep down long slopes. That would be much less >> likely to happen now. And I have subsequently not seen it.) what is the >> evidence that clearcutting damages soils ? >> >> In one area which I had clearcut, except for scattered deciduous >> trees, when all Spruce shed needles in June there was breast high rank >> growth by late summer of Goldenrods etc (perhaps due to a tree-free area >> to the west which acted as a seed source ). But I understand from >> contact with those who thin regrowth on clearcuts that ground cover is >> typically complete within a year. In case of doubt it would make sense >> to sow something which would take root rapidly. This is why I am fond of >> Buckthorn. If seeds are present they establish within a year thereby >> decreasing leaching loss. >> >> With regard to Hardwoods, I understand these are currently >> suppressed or killed in regrowth after cutting. I think this is unwise >> and consequently wrong. In diversity there is strength. But I am not >> clear how "each of us" can encourage hardwood growth. >> >> It is easy enough if you own woods and cut your firewood but I >> think relatively few on Naturens are that fortunate. But getting back to >> the deep rooting of Hardwoods. This is myth to a large degree; they can >> be deep rooted but so can many other trees. Given the right well drained >> sandy soil (e.g. Cornwallis Sandy Loam) White Pine is very deep rooted. >> And one rarely sees Yellow Pine windfalls so I suspect they also are >> deep rooted. Spruce can cope with constantly wet soil but given well >> drained soil is windfirm in the open and therefore deep rooted. (There >> were two Spruce hedges on the farm where I started life, well spaced so >> exposed to wind and some 4-5 trees near the house; about 35 trees total >> and typically about 1.5' diameter at breast height. At least one broke >> off in a high wind but none were ever uprooted and therefore deep rooted.) >> >> My experience with planting trees has been largely negative. Many >> decades ago I read that Oaks were dependent upon absent minded squirrels >> who buried acorns and then forgot where they were; sure. So I gathered >> about 5 litres of acorns, spread them on a small area of garden an