Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

killawhipboy t1_j1p3003 wrote

Reply to comment by dilletaunty in Logged forest compared with an unlogged forest could be better for climate change. A detailed assessment of vegetation growth, bird and mammal numbers, and energy flows in logged and unlogged forests offers some surprising findings. by Creative_soja

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