Kerry's forest ideas out of step with sound ecosystem management
hcf32 at yahoo.no
Mon Aug 2 21:08:48 EST 2004
wxdano9 at hotmail.com (Dano) wrote in message news:<e351cb91.0407311754.34a1dd0e at posting.google.com>...
> Larry Caldwell <larryc at teleport.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b59f2de6010615598afa9 at news.west.earthlink.net>...
> > In article <10evaprqkj5ru3c at corp.supernews.com>, brutus at u.com (Fresno
> > Farms) says...
> > Another facet of the phony federal bookkeeping was that all monies
> > collected from forest sales went back to the general fund, and nothing
> > was retained by the forest service. Among other things, this gave the
> > Forest Service no incentive to maximize return from the sale, and every
> > incentive to roll infrastructure projects into the bid. This led to the
> > construction of many thousands of miles of unneeded road.
> > That's why federal lands were not replanted. The forest service and BLM
> > finally started rolling replanting into the bid in the mid-1970s,
> > decades after everyone else had programs in place. Congress just wanted
> > to collect their money and ignore the land. Nothing has changed. They
> > have passed the "healthy forests" bill, but have not appropriated the
> > money necessary to implement it.
> If I may, there used to be programs to do release to encourage sapling
> growth. If you'll remember before the days of big clearcuts, seed
> trees were left to reseed the area cut. Someone would go back in 2-3-4
> times and do a release on the ceanothus, manzanita, whatever to allow
> seedlings and saplings to grow.
> > Nutrients are not removed from a forest by logging. The wood itself
> > contains very little nutrients of any kind, other than the base
> > cellulose and lignin. Only the green, growing part of the tree actually
> > contains trace nutrients. Slash is not normally removed from the
> > forest, though burning slash destroys nutrients and is not the best use
> > of the material. Chopping and blowing the slash back on the ground is a
> > great improvement over the nutrient depletion caused by fire.
> In a very narrow sense this is true. The 'purpose' of dead wood is to
> release carbon back into the cycle - carbon being a nutrient. Organic
> matter and water holding capacity is added to the soil. "Nurse logs"
> is a good term to remember here.
> > Recent experiments with forest fertilization have shown that forests are
> > nitrogen limited. Interestingly, closed canopy forests are incredibly
> > adept at recycling nitrogen. One application of 160 lbs of nitrogen per
> > acre will result in measurably accelerated growth for several years.
> Yes. One of the benefits of fire is the nitrogen release - the initial
> flush of growth after a fire is due in large part to the nitrification
> process that occurs after a fire.
Beware and read what Psalm writes about fungus and nitrification
below, nitrogen is not truly a limiting factor, methinks
microbiological accelerator factor would be a better term. Fungus and
bacteria eating more soil carbon will make more limiting minerals
available untill the soil is depleted and nitrogen fertilization stop
More information about the Ag-forst