next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Dear All, I recently was given a copy of "Farm Woodlots in Eastern Canada" by E. S. Richards Ottawa 1939. In those days they had the good sense to have the National Research Council involved; I gather in a guidance and editorial capacity. It is well written and, to an unexpected extent, could be called 'How D. H. Webster will improve forest productivity by selectively extracting firewood or logs.' So when he says "Do not clearcut", and explains why, I am inclined to pay attention. All the more so because this was written before 1939; a time when cutting would be by axe or crosscut saw. And typically it is much easier and faster to thin or selectively cut by chainsaw, or thinning saw, than it is by axe or crosscut. A 15 year period is cited for a Spruce to reach 4.5' in height and 30 years to yield two cord per acre. In contrast the 30 years between age 50 and 80 yields 30 cord/acre. So selective cutting avoids that initial 30 years when volume increment is near zero by creating small pedons of low competition on which young trees can become established. This advantage of selective cutting may be offset to some degree by planting after clear cut. But I wonder if widespread planting of Spruce is not asking for widespread forest death 40 years hence. I have read only the first 30 pages of 120, so I may be jumping the gun, but if some who oppose clearcuts have not seen this publication then they may wish to start searching. And Richards stresses, e.g. that care should be taken to avoid tree-free patches which are exposed to full sunlight for an appreciable part of the day. To reestablish trees in such clearings it may be necessary to plant. Amen to that. On sandy soil, I have some patches which are tree free after 70 years. YT, DW, Kentville
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects