Curious to know what folks think about this messaging?Submitted by Johnny9Toes t3_zbqdku in vermont
mycophdstudent t1_iysxr58 wrote
Vermont is 78% woodland acres, more woodland acres than 130 years ago. It's okay to manage your forests and selectively lumber to make income on meeting home heating and building material needs.
Faerhun t1_iyt4qf9 wrote
We also have very, very little old growth, it was all cut down a long time ago. While we're very heavily forested now, close to 80% of the forests in Vermont were clear cut and raised in the 1800s for logging and farmland.
https://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape_new/learn/Downloads/scrapbooks/forestsVT.pdf
mycophdstudent t1_iyt7brf wrote
How old must a tree be to be considered old?
Legitimate_Proof t1_iytjyf7 wrote
It's not just tree age:
>Old growth forests can be defined as forested ecosystems which have developed somewhat independently over a long time, usually at least several centuries. https://vtcommunityforestry.org/news/events/old-growth-forests
That long because old growth forests are characterized by a lot of fallen trees that create habitat and openings for different types trees to grow. So these are much older than the forests we see around most of Vermont that have trees that are mostly similar size and only a few downed ones.
mycophdstudent t1_iytpjjm wrote
Life is resilient so wouldn't that same ecosystem rehabilitate around 50 year old forest? I own land which was cleared for farming in the early 1800's which fell fallow so the forest encroached and there's living fossil neolectica irregularis mushrooms growing from the soil. All sorts of diversity.
Faerhun t1_iyt9d9q wrote
It depends on the tree species but generally around 150-250 years or older.
>Hardwood forests of the eastern United States can develop old-growth characteristics in 150–500 years. In British Columbia, Canada, old growth is defined as 120 to 140 years of age in the interior of the province where fire is a frequent and natural occurrence. In British Columbia's coastal rainforests, old growth is defined as trees more than 250 years, with some trees reaching more than 1,000 years of age.[9] In Australia, eucalypt trees rarely exceed 350 years of age due to frequent fire disturbance.[10]
Fly4aPhish t1_iytu6sv wrote
Correct me if I'm wrong but was there not a massive deforestation in the state in the 1860's? Something like 70-80% of land was cleared largely for timber and sheep I've heard.
Seems misleading to argue there are more trees now than at the time of the largest deforestation in the area since I would guess the last glaciation.
Loud_Geologist_7172 t1_iytx6b3 wrote
It’s also the quality of the new forests that is problematic because a less diverse forest is - if I’m not mistaken- also less resilient to the many impacts wrought by climate change (from pests to erosion of soil).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments