Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening  

Go Back   Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening > Wildlife Gardeners of North America Unite > Biodiversity

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-03-2009, 01:47 PM   #11
Unicellular Fungi
TheLorax's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008

Would this be the region the NY Times article was discussing?
Some See Beetle Attacks on Western Forests as a Natural Event
"In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; we will understand only what we have been taught."
-Baba Dioum, Senegalese ecologist
TheLorax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2009, 02:22 PM   #12
WG Writer
hazelnut's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Greensboro, Alabama USA

One suggestion is selective logging which is the traditional way to manage forests -- along with burning -- but it may be too little too late. Some people say when the beetles come, the trees are already dead. The beetles are cleaner-uppers so stopping them is not the answer to the problem.

To some, logging is the answer. Creating a 20-foot space between trees means less competition for light and water; this equates to healthier trees. The beetles also don’t like sunny habitats.

“Instead of waiting for the trees to die, let’s harvest those trees,” Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently told a group gathered for a state-sponsored forum.

Yet thinning forests typically means taking small-diameter trees. Large trees are supposed to be less susceptible to wildfires and are generally more aesthetically pleasing to the public.

However, beetles like to feast on the large, old-growth trees that typically are left during the thinning process. They’re much more apt to leave the young trees alone�those that usually are logged.

Still, Sturdevant and others remain strong logging proponents, especially on those stands that already are infected.

“Every year (logging projects) are held up in court, because the beetles reproduce exponentially. Then there are more of them and it becomes harder to suppress,” Sturdevant said. “It’s like a wildfire.”

But while logging may work, to some it’s akin to killing the trees to save the forest.

“If you want to log all of Montana, and not leave any large trees, you might be able to somehow stem the tide,” said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Oregon-based Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. “But I think our options are extremely limited for actively controlling the bark beetles.”
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 10:34 AM   #13
Fearless Weeder's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008

House in the Woods article.

Welcome to Wildlife Gardeners! Please join us today to participate in the discussions.
Fearless Weeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 11:56 AM   #14
WG Writer
hazelnut's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Greensboro, Alabama USA

Fire suppression, forest health, Montana economy all linked - The Clark Fork Chronicle

This article suggests there is more than climate change influencing the health of Montana's forests.

The stars have lined up but not in a positive manner for Montana. There is too much vegetation, too little harvesting, and land management is conducted by judges instead of foresters. Tying up millions of board feet on the courthouse steps in Missoula or San Francisco does nothing for the forests or Montana citizens who have repeatedly called for more active management to address fires and bugs. The many in our population are suffering for the actions of the few.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 12:04 PM   #15
WG Writer
hazelnut's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Greensboro, Alabama USA

AWR: Fire Facts for Montana's Forests

Montana fire ecology.

. . . if you want to return to an MFI of 10 years in Ponderosa Pine in Montana, then 300,000 acres of Ponderosa Pine must burn each year, change it to a 20 year MFI and still 150,000 acres must burn each year to retain this forest type within its historical pre-settlement fire frequency. It is assumed that this would then assure this forest type won't develop into "catastrophic" fire conditions.
NOTE: However, all p-pine forests are not the same. There is ample evidence, over six scientific articles, that indicate that p-pine forests had stand replacing fires in pre-settlement conditions (see reference section). Thus, p-pine forests were never homogeneous open park-like stands everywhere. This points out that the fire history of a particular landscape should be known before developing goals for fire frequency and intensity for its particular forest types like p-pine.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 02:53 PM   #16
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The problem I have with moving plants around are two. First, we don't really have a good track record as a species for making wise decisions in our choice to move plants. What may once have seemed like a great idea at the time often comes with many unintended consequences down the road.

Second, this article is referring to moving only those species most at risk. But this is extremely short-sighted. These species are not growing in isolation, but are part of a community of plants, insects, and other animals that all act on each other. Picking just one species to move without consideration of the whole community will probably not be a successful strategy. I certainly have my doubts.
Ecosystem Gardening: learning how to give a little back to wildlife by managing our properties sustainably, conserving natural resources, and creating welcoming habitats.
Carole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 10:10 AM   #17
Calliandra's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009

One of the books I've read mentions that trees planted today may not be able to thrive in the conditions a century from now. That's an amazing thought.

Of course, the question is "which book?", but I've returned them all to the library so I'm not sure. If I locate it later, I'll post. I think all the books I've read are by reputable authors, in any case.

I've been reading a ton of climate change books lately-- really has me questioning the end game of conservation.
Calliandra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 10:34 AM   #18
Official Plant Nerd
Equilibrium's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008

While it is sad the owner of the land of "A House in the Woods, After the Woods Are Gone"is sitting on the equivalent of leveled property... there was much more than met the eye at play. For his situation it would not be in his best interests to consider "trading species". I'm not a proponent of using out-of-zone natives...plant or animal. Quick search brought up this article which barely scratches the surface, Assisted Colonization: Saving Species or Creating New Invasives?, http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/327
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
- Dr. Seuss
Equilibrium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 05:43 PM   #19
WG Facebook Administrator
amelanchier's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lyme, NH

IMO this only makes sense with species that are already quite rare. Common species will be able to deal with global warming by migrating gradually, as species did before & after the last Ice Age. It's the species with highly restricted distributions that could have trouble & require human assistance. These are also the species that are unlikely to become invaders.
amelanchier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 05:52 PM   #20
Prairiefreak's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NE IL, USA

Tip toeing in here for a moment, species are not going extinct because of climate change. We do not know that warmer temperatures and drier weather in some regions is permanent.

Ummm...but when you add in bone-headed human interference and laissez-faire pro-industry insousciance, and fire supression, they sure as heck are. The Dusky Seaside Sparrow is extinct because of NASA. Period. Is the space program worth the extinction of a species? Nope.

Warmer temps and drier weather may NOT be permanent...they may last only 10-75,000 years or so....ROFL!
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.....and spiders." Me and Franky D.
Prairiefreak is offline   Reply With Quote

deliberately, hot, issue, move, species

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2