Kerry's forest ideas out of step with sound ecosystem management
wxdano9 at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 9 11:31:20 EST 2004
Psalm 110 <ScienceCop at HighCommand.org> wrote in message news:<i53eh0lq4i22hq96cbjdaojl03do1hcb12 at 4ax.com>...
> On 8 Aug 2004 22:02:19 -0700, wxdano9 at hotmail.com (Dano) wrote:
> >hcf32 at yahoo.no (O18-C-O16) wrote in message news:<5d02cf45.0408071325.1329df5 at posting.google.com>...
I think we are sort of on the same page, P, although I'm not sure
which chapter, even though I am lectured chapter and verse below.
> [N] is not "tightly bound". Nitrogen as ammonia, ammonium, or urea is
> water soluble and considered a "mobile nutrient" easily lost to water
Nitrogen as ammonia is not tightly bound. This thread is talking about
available nitrogen for a short time (not a normal condition). What
about the normal state of N before it is volatilized and converted to
ammonia? How accessible is atmospheric N? If it is not tightly bound,
why do plants need mychorrizal symbiosis? Also, don't microscopic
decomposers limit N via their metabolism (implying that N is limited)?
> L:iebig's law states: The most limiting factor is dominent. Given an
> abundance of nitrogen (which is toxic to most life in excess) then
> some other factor will be the limiting factor. In climax forests with
> tall canopy, sunlight is the most limiting factor. Light barely
> reaches the forest floor, and because of the many obstacles, it is in
> beams or shafts of light that move continually so that no spot is
> illuminated for very long each day. No amount of nitrogen can
> compensate for the light starvation.
No, but fR and PfR adaptation can compensate. How does, say, redwood
sorrel grow in low light conditions on the forest floor? Oh, yes: it
utilizes far red light and captures every second of any direct light.
How do hemlock forests become climax forests? Because shade-tolerant
seedlings and saplings can wait for scores to hundreds of years for
light to arrive. Too much light and, say, doug-fir dominates for a
Plants adapt to their conditions, else they don't maximize their
reproductive opportunities and are crowded out by plants that do.
> Forest fires actually incinerate and volitalize nitrogen.
Be careful. Incineration is only in catastrophic fire. Volatilization
makes N available for short periods.
> forest has less nitrogen total quantity, but plenty of light. That
> light alone is the cause of the initial flush of growth,
You should contact all the fire ecologists you know then. They would
be interested in this new knowledge.
> as everything else is present in sufficient amounts. As growth proceeds,
> each lifeform will meet it's most limiting factor, and the rapid flush
> will begin to subside.
No, sorry. I suggest enrolling in a fire ecology course, or better, a
forest ecology course.
> Combustion is oxidization. Slow oxidization is rust, corrosion or
> decay, fast oxidization is fire, very fast oxidization is explosion.
> They are all the same process at different rates of speed. A bit of
> fire is not a bad thing, except when its you or yours getting burned.
> Fires have a culling and disease suppressive effect beyond whatever
> they may enable for fire-opportunistic adapted lifeforms. They are not
> such a good thing that they need encouragement -- in a human dominated
> ecology many of fire's overal functionality in forests can be replaced
> by human management.
Now you are starting to sound like a logger. How on earth did forests
survive for hundreds of millions of years before we got here? If
management is the key, how do you account for the other threads here
that argue what needs to be done to fix the past management practices
that got us into this current situation?
More information about the Ag-forst