Start 4 of 16
Tornado's And Salvaging
Note: the Silviculture mentioned with restoration - I will use the
definition for salvaging from a website from a recognized consulting
forester in Texas, which I would assume is a forestry industry standard.
"Salvage and restoration. There comes a time when nature just does not
cooperate with the best of management efforts. At that time you may have to
salvage whats left, and start anew. Salvage is a very different sales effort
for forest products. Usually, the sales material is damaged, dead, or
dying. Finding a market for this material can be tricky, and incomes low.
But, best to move the material, get it out of the way for future work. Take
what income you can from the salvage, and set it aside for planting the
site."
I accept the person's definition, however, I disagree that you can plant a
forest as well as the statement that you may have to remove what is left,
which in this case would be the old growth conditions (Tionesta). I use the
Tionesta Scenic Area in the Allegheny National Forest as a control. It had
a tornado go through in around 1986 and most recently had a blow down. As
far as I know nothing has been removed and all ecological stages of trees
exist. I did soil sampling in that area in the rhizoplane.
What tornados do not do, verses doing the following after a tornado. In
other words what would salvaging wood from a tornado swath achieve - I.e.,
not limited too but including -
As pertaining too: Browsing and Sensitive Plants
A quick note: Salvaging has been noted to be the primary cause linked to
reforestation problems where studies on Salvaging were done (NOT DEER).
NATIONAL WOOD FIBER NEEDS indicate substantial increases in demand for wood
fiber - based products. This demand has resulted in increased efforts to
remove all available fiber at harvesting sites. Intensive fiber removal or
intense wildfire potentially reduces the parent materials (duff and wood
residues) available for the production of organic reserves in forest soils.
This reserve, primarily in the form of humus, decayed wood, and charcoal,
has been shown critical to the support of both nonsymbiotic nitrogen fixing
and ectomycorrhizal activities in forest soils of western Montana. Harvest
and fire-caused reductions of organic materials on and in northern forest
soils have been linked to reforestation problems. This study was undertaken
to provide a preliminary estimate of the impact of varying amounts and kinds
of soil organic matter on ectomycorrhizal development in mature western
Montana forests (Harvey, Jurgensen and Larsen, 1981).
Salvaging this area of symplast maintaining, would remove ectomycorrhizal
tree hosts which would remove the energy source of ectomycorrhizal fungi,
which will not fruit without their host plants. Preservation of a
threatened or endangered species involves preservation of its habitat and
the diversity that habitat entails. When such becomes a goal of forest
management, managers need information not only on owls or small mammals, but
also on the mycorrhizal fungi that form the base of the food web
(Amaranthus, Trappe and Bednar, 1994).
Salvaging this area would remove the host for fungi such as Ganoderma Tsuga
(symplastless hemlock and pine). Fungi feeders, E.g., In the Northwest -
California red-backed voles to black tailed deer, may obtain some of their
protein nitrogen from decaying trees by feeding on fungal fruiting bodies,
such as what some call truffles and mushrooms (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg
36-par 3). Salvaging this area may increase browsing on other plants.
Also some other plants may be eaten for moisture during dryer times where
moisture reservoirs are few or non.
Salvaging this area would be removal of mature and maturing trees which
conserve essential elements, whereas the area containing new very young
planted trees following salvaging are susceptible to erosion and essential
element loss (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg5-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove deeper, multi layered canopies, larger
accumulations, of coarse woody debris (any symplastless standing or fallen
tree stem at least 4 inches in diameter at breast height (D.B.H.) on snags
and at the large end on fallen trees), and removes chances of more
specialized plants and animals (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988,
pg5-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove material and removing its ability to
interact with the plants and animals of the forest floor and soil over a
long period of forest successional history. Large fallen trees can take
more than 400 years to become incorporated into the forest floor (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988,pg37-last par). Without this massive
part of an organism, how do the associates function?
Salvaging this area would remove material that would have greatly influenced
subsequent diversity of both external and internal plant and animal habitats
(Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg41-par4).
Salvaging this area would remove materials that would have provided a
changing spectrum of habitats over many decades, even centuries (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg41-par4).
Salvaging this area would remove material that would have provided diversity
within a given successional stage and forms a physical-chemical link through
the many successional stages of a forest (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and
Franklin, 1988, pg41-par4).
Salvaging this area would remove the processes CWD would have with its
environment through internal surface areas.
Salvaging this area would remove the needed material that certain organisms
have the job to enter and gain entrance to the interior, which they consume
and break down wood cells and fibers. (Hey, this is why they were created)
Which the larger organisms - mites, collembolans, spiders, millipedes,
centipedes, amphibians, and small mammals must await the creation of
internal spaces before they can enter (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin,
1988, pg42-par2).
Salvaging alters the flow of plant and animal populations, air, water, and
essential elements which would have proceeded if salvaging was not done and
would have increased as decomposition continued. (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe
and Franklin, 1988, pg42-par2). The point, if you please, is that when you
remove the masses of CWD you disrupt, deplete thus causing dysfunction
(leading to Death by means of Killing) the designed essential environmental
health needs of plant, animal populations, air, water and essential
elements. Than man claims that the system is not returning to the
conditions prior Salvaging (given many fancy names), then points the finger
to deer claiming they are responsible for the problem. The problem is that
things big and small are leaving this planet. As latter statements mention,
much needed material for health is removed in salvaging which would have
benefited the deer and system. Why not call the forest a deer system
(heart - lungs - liver - kidneys - feet = parts of system) Man is the only
known organism that makes decisions regarding trees out of the ignorance of
tree biology and than adds insult to injury.
Salvaging this area would remove tree parts that would have created and
maintained diversity in forest communities (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and
Franklin, 1988, pg44-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove material that would have resided on the
once fertile forest floor for long periods, would have added to spatial,
chemical, and biotic diversity of forest soils, and to the processes that
maintain long-term forest productivity (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and
Franklin, 1988, pg44-par3).
Salvaging then is reducing spatial, chemical, and biotic diversity of forest
soils, and the processes that maintain long-term forest productivity (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe, and Franklin, 1988, pg44-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove material that that partly would have
maintain the once fertile forest floors diversity which is partly maintained
by windthrown trees that create a pit-and-mound topography as they are
uprooted (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg45-fig2.7).
Salvaging this area would remove material that would have functioned
seedbeds or nurse logs for some trees species and many species of
bryophytes, fungi, and lichens, and some flowering plants (Table 7.6)
(Samuelsson et al. 1994; D.F. Fraser, pers. comm., 1995; E.C. Lea, pers.
comm., 1995) (Voller and Harrison, 1998).
Conclusion: Without a doubt, the removal of CWD is the primary agent, which
alters the system in which problems are blamed on secondary agents such as
deer. Although there is a serious case of denial such as unobserved with
the Painter Run Windthrow Salvage Project? We know many animals such as
deer and bear use CWD for food supply. "Harvest and fire-caused reductions
of organic materials on and in northern forest soils have been linked to
reforestation problems (Harvey, Jurgensen and Larsen, 1981).
End of 4 of 16
Start 5 of 16
Tornado's And Salvaging
Note: the Silviculture mentioned with restoration - I will use the
definition for salvaging from a website from a recognized consulting
forester in Texas, which I would assume is a forestry industry standard.
"Salvage and restoration. There comes a time when nature just does not
cooperate with the best of management efforts. At that time you may have to
salvage whats left, and start anew. Salvage is a very different sales effort
for forest products. Usually, the sales material is damaged, dead, or
dying. Finding a market for this material can be tricky, and incomes low.
But, best to move the material, get it out of the way for future work. Take
what income you can from the salvage, and set it aside for planting the
site."
I accept the person's definition, however, I disagree that you can plant a
forest as well as the statement that you may have to remove what is left,
which in this case would be the old growth conditions (Tionesta). I use the
Tionesta Scenic Area in the Allegheny National Forest as a control. It had
a tornado go through in around 1986 and most recently had a blow down. As
far as I know nothing has been removed and all ecological stages of trees
exist. I did soil sampling in that area in the rhizoplane.
What tornados do not do, verses doing the following after a tornado. In
other words what would salvaging wood from a tornado swath achieve - I.e.,
not limited too but including -
I do repeat at times. I believe it to be of interest.
As pertaining too: Plant Bio-Diversity / Threatened and Endangered Species
Salvaging this area of ectomycorrhizal tree hosts would remove the energy
source of ectomycorrhizal fungi which will not fruit without their host
plants Preservation of a threatened or endangered species involves
preservation of its habitat and the diversity that habitat entails. When
such becomes a goal of forest management, managers need information not only
on owls or small mammals, but also on the mycorrhizal fungi that form the
base of the food web (Amaranthus, Trappe and Bednar, 1994).
Salvaging this area would remove essentials for plants. E.g., We know some
plants are likely, obligate CWD user such as Red Hackberry (Vaccinium
parvifolium) (Voller and Harrison, 1998).
Salvaging this area would remove what would result in windthrown trees.
Forest floor diversity is partly maintained by windthrown trees that create
a pit-and-mound topography as they are uprooted (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and
Franklin, 1988, pg34-par2).
Salvaging this area would remove parts and processes of decomposition of
fallen trees which releases essential elements for microbial and plant
growth (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg36-par1).
Salvaging this area would remove , regardless of size - materials that would
take a considerably longer time to decompose than would needle and leaf
duff. Needles, leaves, and small twigs decompose faster than larger woody
material and essential elements are thereby recycled faster in the forest
floor (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg37-last par).
Salvaging this area would remove material that would, as it falls, be
cycling essential elements for more than 400 years until such trees would
become incorporated into the forest floor (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and
Franklin, 1988, pg37-last par). And then, still plays key roles in rainbows
of humic acids and horizons.
Salvaging, therefore, this area, would remove the interaction of CWD with
the plants and animals of the forest floor and soil over a long period of
forest and stand successional history (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin,
1988, pg37-last par).
Certainly our knowledge of biological processes and their interactions
within forest is incomplete, and we know too little about the cumulative
effect of a wide range of stresses on the ecosystem (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe
and Franklin, 1988, pg1-par2).
Salvaging this area would break connections. Integrative research at the
ecosystem level shows clearly that the many processes operating within
forest inter-connect in important ways. Further, diversity of microscopic
and macroscopic plant and animal species is a key factor in maintaining
these processes (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988,pg1-par2).
Salvaging this area would remove dying and symplastless wood, which would
have provided one of the two or three greatest resources for animal species
in a natural forest. If fallen timber and slightly decayed trees are
removed the whole system is gravely impoverished of perhaps more than a
fifth of its fauna (Maser and Trappe, 1984,pg1-par1). (These treatments
(salvaging), plus several other treatments, are done on the Allegheny
National Forest routinely by the USFS and called "reforestation"???)
Salvaging this area would remove material that would have offered multitudes
of both external and internal habitats that would have changed and yet
persisted through the decades. One needs an understanding of the
synergistic effects of constant small changes within a persistent large
structure to appreciate the dynamics of a fallen tree and its function in an
ecosystem (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 17-par 1).
Salvaging this area would remove present and future symplastless storehouses
for moisture, especially when soil contact is made, which were designed and
would have provided moisture, for plants and animals during dry times such
as summer, so called, drought. (Page-Dumroese, Harvey, Jurgensen and Graham,
1991). Lack of water, during dry times, can be the limiting factor for
plant, animal and entire species survival (STEW - Space, Temp, Elements and
Water). If you would like me to describe the functions of STEW with respect
to stress and strain [ please ask ].
Salvaging increases soil erosion. Salvaging effects soil development in an
unhealthy fashion. Salvaging this area would remove designed storehouses
for essential elements and water for soil, animals and plants. Salvaging
would remove a potentially large source of energy (nutrients) and essential
elements. Salvaging this area would remove seedbeds for plants. Salvaging
this area would remove important habitat for fungi and arthropods. We know,
During decomposition, logs and other forms of coarse woody debris (CWD)
reduce erosion, affect soil development, store essential elements and water,
are a potentially large source of energy (nutrients) and essential elements,
serve as a seed bed for plants, and form an important habitat for fungi and
arthropods (Kropp, 1982).
Salvaging this area would stop the processes, which would take place between
a fallen tree and its surroundings, which would have increased, as
decomposition would have continued. E.g., The flow of plant and animal
populations, air, water, and essential elements. (Maser and Trappe, 1984,
pg 12-par1). Salvaging kills this system processes by means of disruption
and depletion causing dysfunction.
Salvaging this area would remove symplastless trees that were designed to be
structural components of great importance for forest dynamics and forest
biodiversity. Salvaging is removing the processes of decomposition of
trees, which were designed to provide an important link in cycling of
nutrients and essential elements in ecosystems (Kruys and Jonsson, 1999).
Salvaging this area would remove the needs of many species of plants, fungi,
and animals. Many are dependent on symplastless trees for nutrients,
essential elements habitat or substrate and nesting (Kruys and Jonsson,
1999).
Salvaging this area would remove or stop the formation of "new soil".
Salvaging this area would increases the loss of nutrients and essential
elements from the site. Such spots would have excellent for the
establishment and growth of vegetation, including tree seedlings.
Vegetation would have been established on and help stabilize this "new
soil", and as invertebrates and small vertebrates would have begun to burrow
into the new soil, they would not only have nutritionally enriched it with
their feces and urine but also constantly mix it by their burrowing
activities (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 4-par1&2).
Salvaging this area would remove initial, optimal and final stages of fallen
trees. Plant - nutrient / essential elements - and the succession of plants
on fallen trees is mediated by changes in essential element availability and
physical properties over time. Three broad phases can be defined: initial,
optimal, final. Early invaders prepare the tree for later colonization by
altering its physical and chemical properties during the initial phase. The
altered tree provides the best substrate for a wide array of organisms
during the optimal phase. Ultimately, the depletion of essential elements
and physical deterioration of the wood during the optimal phase diminish its
value for many organisms, so fewer species inhabit the final phase (Maser
and Trappe, 1984, pg 25-par 5).
Salvaging this area would have an negative effect on essential elements
besides Nitrogen, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, and Phosphorus and other
essential elements which play key roles in soil, plant and tree health as
well as the other associated living organisms (Page-Dumroese, Harvey,
Jurgensen and Graham, 1991).
Salvaging this area would remove what would be large fallen trees in various
stages of decay which would have contributed to the much needed diversity to
terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Maser and Trappe, 1984, abstract-par2).
material, that when most, biological activity in soil, is limited by low
moisture availability in summer, would have provided a fallen tree-soil
interface and would have offered a relatively cool, moist habitat for
animals and a substrate for microbial and root activity (Maser and Trappe,
1984, Abstract-par2). Similar to taking peoples fans and air conditioners
during summer.
Salvaging this area would deprive forest of large, fallen trees. The impact
of this loss on habitat diversity and on long-term forest productivity must
be determined because management need sound, information on which to base
resource management decisions (Maser and Trappe, 1984, Abstract-par1).
Salvaging this area would remove the wood and the moisture-holding capacity
of the wood, which in turn effects succession of plants and animals (Maser
and Trappe, 1984,pg4-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove the formation of class IV stage of a fallen
tree, which would have presented the most diversified habitat and hence
supported the greatest array of inhabitants. The decayed heartwood, of
heartwood forming trees, would have been relatively stable - so plants that
would have become established upon it would have had time to grow
substantial root systems (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 17-par 3).
Salvaging this area would remove the ecological stage of trees where
essential element cycling processes takes place in a forest through such
mechanisms as duff fall (freshly fallen or slightly decomposed plant
material from the canopy), throughfall (rain or dew that picks up elements
as it falls through the canopy), nitrogen fixation, and essential element
uptake by plants associated with the fallen trees (Maser and Trappe,
1984,pag 19-par2).
Salvaging this area would remove a gradually changing myriad of internal and
external habitats. Plant and animal communities within a fallen tree are
very different from those outside, but both progress through a series of
orderly changes (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 36-par7).
Salvaging this area would remove the structure, which would have eventually
had a community surrounding it that would have been complex (Maser and
Trappe, 1984, pg 38-par 1).
Salvaging this area would remove a connector between the successional stages
of a community. The connector would have provided continuity of habitat
from the previous forest through subsequent successional stages (Maser and
Trappe, 1984, pg 38-par 1).
Therefore, salvaging this area would remove physical links - an essential
element savings account - through time and across successional stages (Maser
and Trappe, 1984, pg 38-par 1).
Salvaging this area would remove a persistent long-term, stable structure on
which some animal (both invertebrate and vertebrate) populations appear to
depend on for survival (Maser and Trappe, 1984, pg 38-par 1).
Salvaging this area would remove Certainly our knowledge of biological
processes and their interactions within forest is incomplete, and we know
too little about the cumulative effect of a wide range of stresses on the
ecosystem (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg1-par2).
Salvaging this area would remove materials that would play key roles in the
conservation of essential elements. Salvaged areas are susceptible to
erosion and essential element loss (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin,
1988, pg5-par4).
Salvaging this area would reduce if not eliminates multi-layered canopies,
removes and stops accumulation of larger accumulations of coarse woody
debris (any symplastless standing or fallen tree stem at least 4 inches in
diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) on snags and at the large end on fallen
trees) (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg5-par3).
Salvaging this area would reduce and remove connections for survival of
specialized plants and animals, which do survive in unlogged areas (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988,pg5-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove material that would have greatly influences
subsequent diversity of both external and internal plant and animal habitats
(Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg41-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove materials that would have provided a
changing spectrum of habitats over many decades' even centuries (Maser,
Tarrant, Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg41-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove material that would have provided diversity
within a given successional stage and forms a physical-chemical link through
the many successional stages of a forest (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe and
Franklin, 1988, pg41-par3).
Salvaging this area would remove material that would have resided on the
forest floor for long periods and would have added to spatial, chemical, and
biotic diversity of forest soils, and to the processes that maintain
long-term forest productivity (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and Franklin, 1988,
pg44-par3).
Salvaging this area would reduce diversity in forest communities by
depletion. Fallen trees do create and maintain diversity in forest
communities (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and Franklin, 1988, pg44-par3).
Salvaging this area would reduce decaying wood that would have positively
enhanced environment for mycorrhizae. In other words, salvaging reduces
good conditions for mycorrhizae (Maser, Tarrant, Trappe, and Franklin, 1988,
pg120-par4).
Salvaging this area would remove future sites that would have served for
reproduction of tree species (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others,
1981).
Salvaging this area would remove a clearly important function of a system
containing trees (Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others, 1981).
Note: The phenomenon of nurse logs is widespread in the forest types of the
Pacific North- west. Minore (1972) found that seedlings of both Sitka spruce
and western hemlocks were more numerous and taller on so called rotten logs
than on the adjacent forest floor at Cascade Head Experimental Forest
(Franklin, Cromack, Kermit, et al. others, 1981).
Salvaging this area would remove CWD that would have functioned as seedbeds
or nurse logs for some trees species and many species of bryophytes, fungi,
and lichens, and some flowering plants (Table 7.6) (Samuelsson et al. 1994;
D.F. Fraser, pers. comm., 1995; E.C. Lea, pers. comm., 1995) (Voller and
Harrison, 1998).
Note: In the Crowsnest Forest, 40-70% of natural seedlings were rooted in
decayed wood in old growth and 24% were rooted in decayed wood in cutblocks
(S. Berch, pers. comm., 1995). CWD may be important to the establishment of
vascular plants around wet sites such as ponds and bogs (Voller and
Harrison, 1998).
NOTE: Page 203 has a list of some vascular plants closely associated with
CWD in BC (Voller and Harrison, 1998).
Conclusion: The capacity and ability, of CWD, to enhance the health of
threatened and endangered species too often goes unobserved such as in the
Painter Run Windthrow Salvage Project.
End of 5 of 16
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and
www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books that
will give them understanding.