Talk:Silviculture

message: {Accountants can also hide millions of dollars in losses through fraud, but by definition that is not the practice of accounting, that is the practice of fraud. Silviculturists that practice unsustainable forestry are by definition practicing something other than silviculture. The biological and ecological sciences are the foundation of silviculture and economics is only a consideration. SierraSkier 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I plant a stand of trees I will use silvicultural techniques, if I manage the stand to produce high quality sawlogs (cleaning, thinning, high pruning, etc) I will use more silvicultural techniques. If my descendants then clearfell the stand and sell the land for development all the sustainability that I had intended vanishes. Perhaps my definition of what is sustainable is too rigorous, or perhaps I'm plain wrong. I accept what you say, however I would argue that silviculture is a toolbox of techniques, the sustainability comes from the ethos of the practicioners.The Boy that time forgot 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

message: This sounds like an inappropriate advertisement for someone's research paper and probably ought to be removed: "Suggestions for how best to go about the job, presented by Jeglum et al. (2003),[4] though aimed primarily at the boreal forest in Ontario, merit wider consideration. The 110-page publication describes Best Management Practices, first by general principles, then by sensitive sites. Illustrations are plentiful and are well chosen to complement this excellent text."    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.148.76 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate advertising

message: I don't really understand how silviculture is different from forestry.  Could someone who knows put in a sentence about it in the intro?  The forestry article has a sentence, but it doesn't really make the difference clear, at least for me.  Are they similar enough that we should think about merging? --Allen 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense; thanks!  --Allen 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To chime-in, I think that Silviculture is more limited than forestry. My brief personal notes on the topic are at Forests are not a renewable resource. In that page, I touch-upon that "forests" are not really trees. Trees are just one aspect of forests. Silvicuture would probably be less developed from the angle of recreation, camping, etc.. From my reading, I don't find Silviculture and Forestry to be equal or identical. Very similar, but not equivalent.Mdvaden 06:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a forester, in Catalonia (Spain). In Catalan we have only a term: "silvicultura", as it is the case also in French: "sylviculture". I think that the equivalent English term is "forestry", and consider that this "silviculture" article should be merged with the one on "forestry".Auró (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Further. It may be that the existence of two different terms to name very similar or identical things, in the case of forestry-silviculture comes from the American history of forest practice. In the times of colonization forestry consisted solely in harvesting, so when some pioneers imported forest cultural techniques from Europe, they introduced the European term silviculture. I think that today there is no longer any sense to maintain both terms, and forestry is the more universally used.Auró (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Silviculture vs. Forestry

message: I agree with the explicit implication that silviculture, to be truly effective, should have sustainability as its goal. This is surely however a point of view. Silvicultural methods can be used in a non-sustainable way, it relies on the practicioner or controlling organisation and their management ethos (amoung other things) to determine sustainability. For example, establishing large scale plantations of productive exotic species on land recently cleared of native species will employ a wide range of silvicultural techniques but could be questioned on grounds of sustainability.The Boy that time forgot 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I plant a stand of trees I will use silvicultural techniques, if I manage the stand to produce high quality sawlogs (cleaning, thinning, high pruning, etc) I will use more silvicultural techniques. If my descendants then clearfell the stand and sell the land for development all the sustainability that I had intended vanishes. Perhaps my definition of what is sustainable is too rigorous, or perhaps I'm plain wrong. I accept what you say, however I would argue that silviculture is a toolbox of techniques, the sustainability comes from the ethos of the practicioners.The Boy that time forgot 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sustainable 

message: I know that the Nyland text is widely respected in the United States, but I have to disagree with its statement that there are only five common regeneration methods.  The article currently ignores coppicing, a distinct category of regeneration.  Additionally, although many forestry textbooks leave it out, prescribed fire is a regeneration method (although some might put it in another category)
The reason why I'm bringing this up in the talk page (and not simply making the change) is that I don't doubt that some foresters think that there are only five methods for regeneration.  I don't want to rewrite the entire section on regeneration but I don't want to add more regeneration methods when the article already says there are five.
I'm a new contributor so I'd appreciate some suggestions.Joe Greentrees (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Regeneration Methods 

message: Thank you for the contribution. I assume that the method consists basically in leaving some felled logs (variable) on the stand. If it is so, may be the explanation could be improved. A reference would help a lot. If 96 50 59 241 is not yet used to introduce references, this may be a good opportunity to start it. If there is some difficulty, a more experienced editor will come to help. --Auró (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found and added a reference.--Auró (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variable retention 

message: Not a clear need for a separate stand-alone article. One book, by one author. Intersects with both silviculture and forest ecology. Best as a section within silviculture? DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Google scholar produces 133.000 citations for "silviculture" and only 279 for "silvology". It seems a quite marginal term. From the reading of silvology page I do not get a clear idea of what is it about. I think that more clarification is needed prior to introduce the material into this article, and particularly to see if there is any difference between the meaning of both terms.--Auró (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 133 citations for "silviculture" is not very many.  But I count more than 900 times that!  My vote is to merge. Bwrs (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (This may be an intercultural numeric writing convention issue: for North Americans, the above note should probably be read as '133,000 citations'... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is hundred and thirty three thousand. --Auró (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Silvology]] 

message: Should this be addded somewhere in the article? http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Lmr/Lmr077.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.38.108 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brushing 

message: A fascinating read with a lot of information on Spruce Silviculture in Canada.  Information on any other topics (hardwoods, temperate forests, etc.) is definitely lacking.  Furthermore, some general statements are false when appied to other areas (e.g., mechanical pre-commercial thinning is economic in (at least some) loblolly pine plantations in the southeastern US).
I wish I could add to the article; unfortunately, my knowledge is far too limited.  I do hope to encourge more information to be added to the excellent data already here to make this a more well-rounded article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.0.196 (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Scope 

message: An IP proposed a split of this article into five: Silviculture, Regeneration (silviculture), Tending, Harvesting systems, Growth and yield.  At 134,308 bytes, the current article is certainly long enough to WP:SIZESPLIT, but I'm not sure if the proposed new pages would indeed be the best way to partition all of the information, or if it's entirely necessary to be split 5 ways into 4 new articles.  It seems that some of this stuff might be moved to existing related articles like Forest ecology and Silvology, discussed in the proposed merge above.  Anyone have any input on how this might best be divvied up?  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: Diploma in forestry 2405:ACC0:1207:4D0:D48D:75EA:F2F3:F681 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silviculture