From: jhurst@amb4.ese.ogi.edu (James Hurst)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Forests Increasing
Summary: Bow-wow, with typical accuracy...
Keywords: Stop the Orygun Chainsaw Massacre, etc, etc.
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:46:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.40584
Organization: Medicine Bow Drum Core

>Paul Schinder writes:
>> Arf writes:

>> Take a walk in a cornfield sometime.  Then take a walk in 
>> one of our "National Forests".  The only difference is you 
>> might get sunburn in the cornfield.  They are equally devoid 
>> of biodiversity.

This statement is strikingly divorced from reality.  The ~190 million acres
of the national forest system include hardwood cove forests, pine savannahs,
floodplain swamps, high, low, hot, dry, and cold deserts, tundra, alpine
meadows, great fir forests, and New England hardwoods.  The national forest
system provides by some estimates half of the remaining wildlife habitat in 
the country, and represents many healthy, diverse ecosystems.

The only part with really high value timber is the northwest, where the
policy of replacing native forests with industrial tree farms has run afoul
of organized and effective opposition from environmentalists.  If nothing 
was left, there would be little to fight over.  To the contrary, there are 
lots of very nice forests left in northwest national forests.  Percentwise,
not much of the original old growth is left, which makes it that much more
precious.  The fighting at this point is as much about the mature forests
that haven't been impacted as severely by logging, but which will mature 
into old growth in the next few decades if left vertical.

>I happened to have been in a National Forest within the last two
>weeks: Coronado National forest in Arizona.  I didn't notice any
>particular lack of biodiversity; in fact, I've read that the Sonoran
>Desert is noted for it's biodiversity, and a large chunk of it is
>National Forest.  What you say may be true of some National Forests,
>but not all.

Hardly any, in my experience.  (Remember, that's arf you're following up). The 
Uwharrie, in North Caroline, and a few other coastal plain forests in the 
southeast, plus some in Michigan, do rather resemble tree farms.  But even the 
Uwharrie has a pocket sized wilderness area or two now.

>In any event, if we're narrowly worrying about getting carbon dioxide
>out of the atmosphere, I'd guess that monoculture might be the way to
>go, something that grows quickly and "fixes" as much carbon as
>possible.

I've read that the old growth forests of the northwest contain the highest
biomass per acre of any ecosystem on earth.  In part this is due to the large
amount of standing timber, but also important is the thick duff layer that 
builds up over a few decades (which is vaporized during the slash burning 
applied after logging, generally).  If we want to tie up carbon, there would 
appear to be some value in preserving the remaining fragments of this forest 
ecosystem, and studying them for lessons that could be applied elsewhere.

Regarding the general statement that forests are increasing:  I read that 
hardwood stocks in the eastern US are up, due to reduced demand in recent 
years, while softwood stocks in the west are down, due to the replacement 
of native forests on public and private land with small diameter tree farms.
Hurricane Hugo had a measurable impact on the national supply, literally 
levelling thousands of acres overnight.  


					Jim
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy