ORIGINAL: bluebird2
May I respectfully request that you try reading the AWR with some degree of objectivity. here is a quote from the 2006-2007AWR.
of future forest character and client needs 2 composition groupings are
The first groups tree species by preference for timber management. The
second composition grouping represents the forest’s ability to regenerate the
existing dominant canopy. Dominant species include those that contribute at least
2% of the State’s total-tree biomass and are able to grow into the existing
21001
3
canopy; Other High Canopy species include all others that are capable of
attaining canopy dominance” (McWilliams et al. 2004:13-14).
We requested ATSSR data for dominant canopy species and species capable of
achieving high canopy status by WMU from the USFS and DCNR. Because of the
sampling scheme used in the Pennsylvania Regeneration Study, it takes 5 years to
visit all sample plots. Based on input from cooperating agencies that designed
and conduct the Pennsylvania Regeneration Study, we defined forest habitat as
good if 70% or more of the sampled plots contained adequate regeneration. If less
than 50% of the plots contained adequate regeneration, forest habitat health was
considered poor. Fair falls between cutoffs for good and poor
Please note that the surveys are limited to high dominant species and does not include shrubs. Therefore , a clearcut where the majority of regeneration was blackberry, raspberry ,green thorn and multiflora rose would be considered a failure ,even though it would provide as much if not more food for deer that if it had regenerated as a stand of 100% red oak. furthermore after 10 or twelve years it would still producing a lot of browse ,whereas the browse in a stand of oak would drop by around 75%.