Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dilletaunty t1_j1p0y3o wrote

Isn’t it kind of well known that breaks in tree cover/tree fall increases diversity? I think the main argument against logging is that it tends to involve clear cutting, mono crops, and other issues resulting from poor management.

Further reading recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

438

lumberjack_jeff t1_j1p1hfe wrote

Yes. A varied canopy is important for habitat. The biggest problem from logging in temperate forests is road erosion into streams from overuse.

119

h3lblad3 t1_j1q9w47 wrote

My takeaway from this is that more environments need beavers reintroduced and not that more environs need logged.

47

kslusherplantman t1_j1qgzo9 wrote

This is a totally important point.

Could you imagine what this continent looked like before all the massive trapping that happened? Beavers were one of the most trapped animals.

Meaning there had to be millions of beaver ponds across Canada, the US, and into Mexico holding water and preventing erosion.

33

Leemcardhold t1_j1r8ham wrote

It was mostly swamp

2

[deleted] t1_j1rir5x wrote

Well maybe it should be mostly swamp

14

rata_thE_RATa t1_j1rtdzh wrote

Maybe after we kill off biting mosquitos.

3

[deleted] t1_j1rxbte wrote

They're not that bad. They're better than humans

−7

Lathael t1_j1s32vg wrote

You want to check your facts again. Mosquitos are overwhelmingly the number 1 cause of death by an animal, estimated at 1,000,000 deaths annually. Humanity is closer to 500k by best estimates. (has multiple sources.)

8

kslusherplantman t1_j1rvm1n wrote

You’ve never seen a beaver pond if you equate them with “swamp”

4

Leemcardhold t1_j1rycjv wrote

You’ve never seen a beaver pond if you don’t equate the extended flooded area beyond the pond to a swamp, or ok, a wet meadow.

2

kslusherplantman t1_j1ryp9q wrote

I’ve seen more beaver ponds that you ever will.

I live in the backcountry. In areas with MANY reintroduced beavers.

And just so you know, not everywhere (and many places I’ve seen) when they dam a river, there ARENT extended meadows (swamps as you call them)

You are assuming it’s always like that, which very much shows how few beaver ponds you have seen

−3

Leemcardhold t1_j1sbyw6 wrote

Ha, I had the same thought. I’ve worked on numerous beaver projects and have worked/studied forestry and wildlife for over a decade.

Much of the eastern US seaboard was described as huge swamps by European settlers. It was the destruction of the beaver and dams that dried out the ‘swamps’. When I say ‘swamp’ I mean wet meadows, swamps, forested wetlands. Washington DC was famously a ‘swamp’ before it was drained. Anytime a beaver dams water, the water will spread. The extent varies wildly.

1

Sylux444 t1_j1qmlqt wrote

What this chart says : apples are red, apples are sweet, money is sweet. Therefore apples are money

9

Organic-Idiocy t1_j1p1t8k wrote

The roads are also a problem no matter what you do

43

Creative_soja OP t1_j1p22wy wrote

True. Except for mud trails, any paved road eventually divides the forest and somehow irreversibly damages the ecosystem.

39

Gastronomicus t1_j1py8yw wrote

> Except for mud trails, any paved road eventually divides the forest and somehow irreversibly damages the ecosystem.

Not sure what you mean by "mud trails", but depending on use and location, unpaved roads can experience significant problems with erosion and soil compaction.

8

Greypilgrem t1_j1ps2c4 wrote

False. Outsloping roads, frequent surface drainage structures, and hydrologically disconnecting the surface flows from streams are an immense improvement.

1

Gastronomicus t1_j1q8p6n wrote

This is harm reduction, not harm elimination. Their comment was very clear that roads are a problem irrespective of what measures are taken to protect the landscape.

4

Organic-Idiocy t1_j1q2p1k wrote

That doesn't make them not a problem. And all that chemical runoff isn't peachy either

1

Greypilgrem t1_j1q70xo wrote

It significantly reduces the erosion, sedimentation, and pollution into waters. Your comment offers a naive simple perspective. Of course, the forest would be better off if we became extinct, but we havent done that yet. Should rural properties only use helicopters to travel? Should we only use plastics for furniture? Educate yourself. The Rural Roads Handbook offers some insight: https://www.pacificwatershed.com/roadshandbook

−2

Organic-Idiocy t1_j1q9d0i wrote

Harm mitigation is not the same as lack of harm.

Educate yourself on simple logic and human communication friend. You can argue that logging is a necessity and better than alternatives while still recognizing that there are many aspects of it which are harmful to the environment.

I eat meat and I can argue that eating chicken is better for the environment than eating beef, but it's still problematic.

>Should rural properties only use helicopters to travel

Rural properties should be largely unsubsidized. The cities largely pay for all those roads, communication services, trash, water, utilities, etc, because some people like the lifestyle. I didn't grow up in a big city. I know that most small town folk are NOT engaged in farming/logging/mining. They can stay there all they want but I'm sick of paying for them to live unsustainably.

6

Greypilgrem t1_j1qbo3v wrote

My point is that rural roads aren't going anywhere. Therefore, they should be constructed and maintained appropriately. I agree, they are a problem, but we can limit the impact. Also, most rural areas are unincorporated.

3

Gastronomicus t1_j1q8tqb wrote

You're missing the point. "Reduces" isn't the same as "eliminates". Regardless of benefits and challenges, roads are problematic and that is their point.

0

Creative_soja OP t1_j1p1b0a wrote

True. But this study is one of the first to extensively document, through field measurements, the impacts on biodiversity in a logged and in an unlogged forest within the same geographical region.

17

Wjbskinsfan t1_j1p1y3e wrote

I studied Wood Science and Technology in college and learned this almost 15 years ago.

17

Gastronomicus t1_j1pxzbb wrote

> Isn’t it kind of well known that breaks in tree cover/tree fall increases diversity?

This is the case in boreal and temperate forests. I'm not sure if it is as relevant for tropical forests that already display high diversity (though likely to some extent). Article is behind a paywall so I couldn't read it any further.

5

dilletaunty t1_j1qzfsm wrote

That caveat totally makes sense to me, thanks for bringing it up.

To talk it through: The benefit from tree fall seems to be a mix of increased light penetrating to the forest floor + detrivory & soil buildup from the fallen trees (which we can ignore due to the logging). The documentaries I’ve seen on rainforests emphasize how the ecosystem is layered among the canopy with many epiphytic plant species and animals adapted to life off the ground. So the increased light penetration may not balance out the loss in diversity among life that depends on adult trees. It probably depends on the relative balance/rarity among the different layers, and I don’t know enough to guess on where an appropriate balance is.

3

cistacea t1_j1qiluq wrote

, rainforest a whole different animal yeah exactly

2

cistacea t1_j1qijcx wrote

Watching the YouTube video "era of megafires", the long one, will totally open your eyes about why West Coast forests are too thick and they need to be thinner

3

ShittyDuckFace t1_j1r9ja2 wrote

Agreed. In addition, I also wonder if some research on logging, similar to milk, are funded by people who are interested in a specific result.

But at the end of the day, logging - like milk - is about research-based management and moderation.

2

dilletaunty t1_j1s16f1 wrote

I’m sure research by logging companies is pretty dubious. I think the forest service or other publications from government entities may be more fair, as they a) have access to info on a wider variety of data, b) get money from flat rent rather than extractable value and c) politically are interested in balancing a variety of human activities which include wildlife diversity/appeal.

But like who knows tbh

1

ShittyDuckFace t1_j1sgpc3 wrote

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at but I don't know what research has been done by logging companies, so I didn't want to say anything definite.

1

U_Sam t1_j1s3pxz wrote

Learned in my wildlife management class in university this semester that biodiversity in mammals actually increases with urbanisation. That being said I hate urbanisation.

2

dilletaunty t1_j1s45x6 wrote

Is that a flat biodiversity of mammals or a biodiversity of local mammals? I can understand if it increases from released pets or specifically animals good at exploiting human systems but otherwise that’s just… hella counterintuitive

5

U_Sam t1_j1s53xc wrote

The way my professor (phd in wildlife ecology) phrased it made it seem to be flat. Red fox do particularly well in urban environments. One of our projects was to create a hypothetical management plan for a forested area for a specific species and she stated that for red fox, increased urbanisation would highly benefit them.

1

SomeDudeFromKentucky t1_j1sggqx wrote

Another important factor is that old growth forests absorb far more CO2 a tree, say 4 times the size of another tree absorbs >4x the carbon.

2

killawhipboy t1_j1p3003 wrote

Clear cutting is actually a good method of logging. It allows the forest to basically start anew and grow in stages again. Selective cutting is the worst practice for logging. Obviously doing the entire forest isn't good but when done in sections it is positive. A

−24

ltethe t1_j1p4ppn wrote

I don’t necessarily not believe you, but citations would be appreciated.

18

dilletaunty t1_j1p3y8w wrote

Why is a fresh start better than fewer trees? Due to the road/transportation issues or competition with well established plants?

7

shipsAreWeird123 t1_j1pfav5 wrote

I'm not the poster you were responding to, but my guess is that when you clear cut you're doing something more close to primary succession.

Because nothing is established yet, there might be an opportunity for some bigger species to get established, whereas if you cut down the old growth, the shorter canopies can block sunlight to the ground and you might never get the big trees.

After guessing I did some googling

Anti-clear cutting https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/compass/2020/07/16/past-partial-cutting-techniques-more-beneficial-than-past-clear-cutting/

"Pro" clear cutting https://www.stillwaterforestry.com/forestry/a-selective-cut-that-is-worse-than-a-clear-cut.php

Honestly I should have googled before trying to come up with an explanation. There is very little information on the internet in favor of clear cutting. Though I do think the article does a good job of explaining why there are diminishing returns for selective cuts.

6

azbod2 t1_j1pvqcd wrote

as an owner of some woodland my opinion is this, whilst limited low volume wood harvesting is hard to notice or impact the eco system the continual human use of the wood has many impacts. We make trails, we scuff up the leaf litter, we scare away animals, we make chages for commercial reasons, we selectivly harvest not knowing the consequences.

If we leave it alone and then clear cut and leave again, the area has a long amount of time without disruption to regrow, like a forest fire or something, it seems devestating but the seed bank in the soil will have plenty of opportunity to sort itself out out.

when our neighbour made a clearing, we as aging hippies where shocked and dismayed, over the years his clearing has become a haven for wild life and a genuinely arttractive place for us as well as wildlife, in contrast our patch of overgrown woodland is dark dingy, has little ground cover or fodder for animals and has less biodiversity etc. Now we have a variety of different bits of woodland in out patch so its not an issue but the vibrancy and versitilty of life is amazing and shouldnt be taken for granted.

In many ways our constant low impact "meddling" has done a worse job than actually leaving it to its own devices, clear cutting or not.

Wood land has evolved over millions of years and life is just waiting for the chance to spring up anew and natural events, fires, storms, roaming larger animals etc will naturally clear and kill some of the larger trees that have over shadowed the smaller ones.

The act of driving machinery over the land and even well used foot paths is quite a destructive to the soil and delicate balance of funghi and leaf litter, moss and smaller plants.

So its not that the earth and its plants and animals are not resilient to damage but that we constantly meddle without a long term view. Pretty much every city will be overgrown quite swiftly in earth time if the humasns went away. Its our constant adjusting that can lead to good vs bad outcomes.

Dont get me wrong, i believe that with the right attitude we can be in harmony with nature and makes theings "better" but its just a shame that we dont always do that.

2

Wolfenjew t1_j1qevwu wrote

The thing is though that was likely a small area that was clear cut. Logging operations that clear cut can take hundreds of acres, and I wouldn't be surprised if they reached the thousands.

4

Gastronomicus t1_j1pzjct wrote

> Clear cutting is actually a good method of logging

You're right - it's a fantastic method of logging. It's not however an ideal method of forest management for diversity and ecosystem services. It mimics large scale disturbance events (e.g. fire, major windthrows) in some ways (large scale tree removal).

However, it is also significantly different than those events in that it removes more of the larger biomass from the landscape (fires tend to burn off only fine fuels), reducing the organic materials left on site. It also removes local seed sources, forcing replanting as the only option for regrowth in the short-term.

Additionally, clear cutting involves the use of machinery that can compact and damage the soil, often by design. Remaining biomass is moved into piles and the soil surface is scrapped into windrows to facilitate growth of new seedlings. This continued removal of organic materials and soil damage can lead to longer-term depletion of organic matter and nutrients from soils and compaction, affecting its hydraulic properties and capacity for carbon storage and long-term productivity.

These areas are then replanted as a monoculture and typically sprayed with herbicides to reduce competition. While it's often the case that these forests tend to regenerate in even-aged patches dominated by one species, this only exacerbates this effect and reduces understorey diversity as well.

Clear-cutting isn't all bad, but it certainly isn't a "good" method of silviculture from an ecological perspective. Many countries having been shifting to a model that is closer to a partial-harvest, with the intent of increasing diversity on the landscape, which is demonstrated to improve forest ecosystem resilience to disturbance and climate change.

5