Why do West Coast trees grow so much bigger then East Coast trees?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JonnyHart
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 36
  • Views Views 8K
I think 200 years are too short a span.
In one of the uncountable books about trees and forestry that I own, there is a drawing of the cycle from pioneer species to oldgrowth forest.
They figure it takes about 400 years.
 
Al Smith said:
To me the regrowth of natural forestation is interesting .

In Ohio for example it was once said a squirrel could traverse the tree tops from lake Erie to the Ohio river and never touch the ground . 200 years later the area I live in is maybe 20 percent wooded .However just let a piece of ground lay fallow for 20 years and it starts all over again,trees every where .Likely were 100 years to pass and it would look like it had never been cleared I would imagine .
Click to expand...

Cobleskill said:
I haven't figured out how the oak forests came about on the east coast. I have watched the oaks being cut for the last 40 years. Maple, Ash, and Beech seem to take over.
Click to expand...

Matheny and Clark cover this pretty well, its called succession. Quite interesting
 
Al, I remember reading an article that when they were preparing to film the Last of the Mohicans, they wanted a virgin forest so that it would look right. They finally selected one and after they started filming found out it had been harvested just 80 years before. With good growing conditions a forest can regenerate in a hurry. It may not be to the beech-maple climax stage, but close enough most people don't know the difference. I know many areas in IL where I grew up that have gone back to timber since it was marginal farmland anyway. Think that happened a lot in the east, when productivity in the bread basket of the midwest increased.

PS. The prairie regenerates quickly from shelterbelts also.
 
The US Forest Service here in western Oregon has been sued by evironmental activists for planning commercial thinning timber sales in 2008 in what they called oldgrowth, that we could show aerial photos of as harvested units in 1945 :). That suit didn't go their way.

There is no better place on this planet to harvest wood fiber on a sustainable basis that right here. But these "environmentalists" would rather shut that down so they don't have to see the evidence of it occasionally, and send their appetite for wood to some poor third world country that doesn't have the luxury to say no, and has nowhere near the same ability to manage timber harvests without killing their natural resource base.
 
It becomes somewhat of an emotional issue with timber harvesting .It areas such as the Carolinas they grow pines about like we grow corn,it's a cash crop .Simple as that .If they don't grow it ,it's kind of hard to trot on down to Lowes and buy a 2 by 4 .

Hard woods are different but of course not used as much .These are selectively cut .I'm not so much in favor of the way some are harvested though.It's been my observation that it's done much better if the land owner keeps tabs on the cutters rather than just turn them loose and collect a check . I guess though it's none of by business because I don't own the land .

Oh say on that ! Every so often Tom gets a call to top out a few trees in order to lessen the damage to others that could occur in felling operations .Mandated by the state of Ohio on certain lands .Fact last last year I peeled a top myself so as not to screw up a walnut in the process of tripping a dead ash .Used a bucket truck to do it though .I kind figured that walnut might grow a hundred more years and why not take the time to preserve it .Just me,no big deal .:)
 
Burnham said:
The US Forest Service here in western Oregon has been sued by evironmental activists for planning commercial thinning timber sales in 2008 in what they called oldgrowth, that we could show aerial photos of as harvested units in 1945 :). That suit didn't go their way.

There is no better place on this planet to harvest wood fiber on a sustainable basis that right here. But these "environmentalists" would rather shut that down so they don't have to see the evidence of it occasionally, and send their appetite for wood to some poor third world country that doesn't have the luxury to say no, and has no where near the same ability to manage timber harvests without killing their natural resource base.
Click to expand...


Nicely put Burnham. Silly indeed when you think about it. I never have understood either. In Idaho it seems like they have a choice to harvest or let it burn. Our state land has been seeing alot of thinning and selective type cuts. Do not hardly see any logging tracks in the fed land any more.
 
I believe that environmentalists look upon logging as a bad thing due to the greenhouse gas concerns, not just the disappearance of certain trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top