|
Eastern Forests Are Growing Faster
Forests Are Growing Faster, Ecologists Discover; Climate Change Appears to Be Driving Accelerated Growth
ScienceDaily (Feb. 2, 2010) — Speed is not a word typically associated with trees; they can take centuries to grow. However, a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found evidence that forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years. The study offers a rare look at how an ecosystem is responding to climate change. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...t+Science+News Maybe the PGC can step up and claim responsibillity by killing off all the deer for the reason and claim climate change a joke and lie. |
Then we have this from the Forestry foundation.
Ranking as one of the state’s top manufacturing industries, Pennsylvania’s forest products industry is a vital component of the state’s economy. The industry employs 82,000 workers with an annual payroll of $2.4 billion. Pennsylvania’s paper and wood manufacturing workforce represents 6.9 percent of the state’s total manufacturing workforce. Approximately 59 percent of Pennsylvania is forested. Ranking as one of the state’s top manufacturing industries, Pennsylvania’s forest products industry is a vital component of the state’s economy. The industry employs 82,000 workers with an annual payroll of $2.4 billion. Pennsylvania’s paper and wood manufacturing workforce represents 6.9 percent of the state’s total manufacturing workforce. Approximately 59 percent of Pennsylvania is forested. Credited to regeneration and planting programs, the net annual forest growth exceeds harvests by a substantial margin. Pennsylvania's Land Area (in thousands of acres) Total Land Area: 28,685 Forests: 16,905 Forests as Percent of Total: 58.9% Federal Lands: 678 National Forest System: 513 Timberland (in thousands of acres) Government Federal: 498 State: 2,788 County & Municipal: 233 Forestry Industry: 613 Other Private Nonindustrial: 11,721 Total Timberland: 15,853 Pennsylvania's Land Area (in thousands of acres) Total Land Area: 28,685 Forests: 16,905 Forests as Percent of Total: 58.9% Federal Lands: 678 National Forest System: 513 Timberland (in thousands of acres) Government Federal: 498 State: 2,788 County & Municipal: 233 Forestry Industry: 613 Other Private Nonindustrial: 11,721 Total Timberland: 15,853 How is that possible if deer have been preventing regeneration 80 years? |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3569976)
Then we have this from the Forestry foundation.
"Approximately 59 percent of Pennsylvania is forested. Credited to regeneration and planting programs, the net annual forest growth exceeds harvests by a substantial margin." How is that possible if deer have been preventing regeneration 80 years? |
Then we have this from DCNR.
Wood Volume Continues to Increase The Commonwealth’s forests provide raw materials for fine furniture, cabinets, hardwood flooring, paper, and more. Pennsylvania’s $5.5 billion forest products industry supports nearly 100,000 jobs. The amount of wood in Pennsylvania’s forests has increased substantially since the mid-1950s and continues to increase. Pennsylvania’s forests contain approximately 86 billion board feet of lumber. This is nearly four times the volume recorded in 1955. As shown in the graph below, while the increasing trend is evident, the rate since 1989 is slower than in the previous two inventory periods. The graph to the right shows the top tree species in board foot volume. Except for sugar maple and American beech, which have recently declined in parts of Pennsylvania, all of the major species increased in volume since the previous inventory, representing an overall 18 percent increase. |
Wow,that can't be.I thought acid rain was preventing the forests from growing.
Well the forests can still be expanding but what exactly is regenerating?How much are they getting for Beech and striped maple. DCNR is correct but is doesn't mean the deer haven't done major damage.The board feet was continuing to growing because the trees that regenerated at the turn of the century when we had few deer have gotten bigger. |
I liked it better when they weren't groing so fast and were producing the best hardwoods in the world and the little deer who were starving were walking around everywhere and all the little hunters filled their tags with ease and to think that's when all these great trees of today got their start...
|
No,these great trees of today got their start at the turn of the century when there were so few deer,they had to bring them in from out of state to stock them.
We know you like easy hunting Frank.Unfortunately,those days of having dozens of deer pracing by you all day through the open timber got us into the mess we're in today. |
"No,these great trees of today got their start at the turn of the century when there were so few deer,they had to bring them in from out of state to stock them." So there are now no 5 to 70 or 80 year old oak trees?...:s12: |
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3570291)
So there are now no 5 to 70 or 80 year old oak trees?...:s12:
|
There so many in that class because of timbering practices and the fact we are only timbering 1% or less per year.
|
Originally Posted by DougE
(Post 3570220)
Wow,that can't be.I thought acid rain was preventing the forests from growing.
Well the forests can still be expanding but what exactly is regenerating?How much are they getting for Beech and striped maple. DCNR is correct but is doesn't mean the deer haven't done major damage.The board feet was continuing to growing because the trees that regenerated at the turn of the century when we had few deer have gotten bigger. |
The following quote from DCNR's ,"Sate of The forests"
also supports my position the amount of forested acreage almost doubled since 1907. Forestland is Stable Across Most of Pennsylvania In 1630, forests covered an estimated 95 percent of Pennsylvania. Then, beginning in the mid-1800s, nearly all the forests in Pennsylvania were harvested by the developing nation for agriculture and wood products. The area of forestland reached an all-time low of about 30 percent in 1907. Since the early 1900s, the forests have recovered and total forestland area appears stable. The current inventory shows no net loss of forestland statewide. Today, forests cover about 58 percent of the land area in Pennsylvania, totaling 16.6 million acres, compared to 16.8 million acres and 16.7 million acres in 1978 and 1989, respectively. However, certain portions of Pennsylvania, especially the southeast and south- central regions, are losing forestland to sprawl and development. Regional analyses to determine changes in forestland area are underway and future reports will provide insights as data become available. |
you've got to be kidding me? "doubled since 1907"? Are you actually claiming that this point proves that the deer do not impact regeneration? Do you believe that there just might be a chance that since there were very few deer back then it might have contributed to the successful regeneration...not to mention the fact that many parts of the state (northcentral primarily) were almost entirely clearcut at that time and any regeneration would certainly add to the forested acreage significantly. Come on.....If you are not a politician, then I think you truly missed your calling.
|
Here is the link to the DCNR report I quoted. It shows that our forests continue to increase from 1907 to 1978 and that included the period when we had 1.3 M deer in just 30 counties in the northern tier.
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry...A_DCNR_FIA.pdf After reading that report would you care to revise your comments? |
Actually No, I would not like to revise my statement. If you look at the bar graph in the report that shows the millions of trees in the various years you will see that following the low point in 1907, the amount of forestland increased until 1965 and from that point on, which I wasn't in the woods back then, but wasn't that the general time frame for when deer herds began to increase? Also, I believe that the increase in forested acreage shown between 1907 and 1965 is basically successional resulting from the clear cuts of around 1900. If you look at some photos of Lycoming County from that time it shows the entire mountains in the Pine Creek Valley without a tree on it. Obviously, following this extreme logging, forestland in general would have to increase dramatically. What's also note worthy is the discussion on even aged forests included in the material.
|
I did not clearly finish one of my thoughts in the previous post. The bar graphs show the increase in forests from 1907 to 1965 and from that point forward it appears that the acreage was fairly stable. Thus supporting the even-aged info, deer overbrowsing claims (if in fact that is when the herds were increasing significantly), etc.
|
Actually No, I would not like to revise my statement. If you look at the bar graph in the report that shows the millions of trees in the various years you will see that following the low point in 1907, the amount of forestland increased until 1965 and from that point on, which I wasn't in the woods back then, but wasn't that the general time frame for when deer herds began to increase |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3571211)
No, the highest deer densities in the northern tier counties occurred in the 1930's and it peaked again in the mid 70's and the quote I posted shows that forested acreage continued to increase until around 1978 and after that point it remained stable ,except for the loss due to development, not to over browsing.
Just curious, do you have any thoughts on the claims of even aged stand and the lack of understory in the information? |
The following quote from DCNR's ,"Sate of The forests"
also supports my position the amount of forested acreage almost doubled since 1907. Quote: Forestland is Stable Across Most of Pennsylvania In 1630, forests covered an estimated 95 percent of Pennsylvania. Then, beginning in the mid-1800s, nearly all the forests in Pennsylvania were harvested by the developing nation for agriculture and wood products. The area of forestland reached an all-time low of about 30 percent in 1907. Since the early 1900s, the forests have recovered and total forestland area appears stable. The current inventory shows no net loss of forestland statewide. Today, forests cover about 58 percent of the land area in Pennsylvania, totaling 16.6 million acres, compared to 16.8 million acres and 16.7 million acres in 1978 and 1989, respectively. However, certain portions of Pennsylvania, especially the southeast and south- central regions, are losing forestland to sprawl and development. Regional analyses to determine changes in forestland area are underway and future reports will provide insights as data become available. __________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3571221)
The following quote from DCNR's ,"Sate of The forests"
also supports my position the amount of forested acreage almost doubled since 1907. Quote: Forestland is Stable Across Most of Pennsylvania In 1630, forests covered an estimated 95 percent of Pennsylvania. Then, beginning in the mid-1800s, nearly all the forests in Pennsylvania were harvested by the developing nation for agriculture and wood products. The area of forestland reached an all-time low of about 30 percent in 1907. Since the early 1900s, the forests have recovered and total forestland area appears stable. The current inventory shows no net loss of forestland statewide. Today, forests cover about 58 percent of the land area in Pennsylvania, totaling 16.6 million acres, compared to 16.8 million acres and 16.7 million acres in 1978 and 1989, respectively. However, certain portions of Pennsylvania, especially the southeast and south- central regions, are losing forestland to sprawl and development. Regional analyses to determine changes in forestland area are underway and future reports will provide insights as data become available. __________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state |
If you prefer to say the acreage peaked in 1968 instead 1987 that's fine with me, but the fact remains that no forested acreage was lost due to failed regeneration even at the high deer densities during the 30s and the 70s. Since the report is based on the number of forested acres instead of volume, it is clear that the increases were not due to the growth of trees that began growing before 1930.
While it is true that many of our forests are even aged stands of saw timber, that does not mean all of those stands are of the same age. We have a stand of poplar saw timber that were seedlings during the 50's and we also have adjoining stands of oak ,ash and birch that are around 100 years old. Also remember our forests almost double despite losses due to roads, surface mining, power lines,gas lines and development. Thousands of acres were lost just in the Poconos due to the numerous subdivisions. |
GNHUNTING:
Welcome to Bluebird2:poke::poke: |
Been away for a few days and come back to find another example of half the story from the bird. Why make a point of the amount of forest without also noting that the makeup is changing? Most desirable species are declining including red and white oak while the less desireable species like black birch and striped maple have increased.
Kind of like the guy who's garden was taken over by weeds rationalizing and telling us that it's still the same size and it's still green. |
Wrong again, I provided the whole story since I provided the link to the full report. But the fact is that our current oak forests that developed around the turn of the century develop under entirely different conditions than exist today so it is unrealistic to expect the forests to regenerate with the species composition.
|
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3572243)
Wrong again, I provided the whole story since I provided the link to the full report. But the fact is that our current oak forests that developed around the turn of the century develop under entirely different conditions than exist today so it is unrealistic to expect the forests to regenerate with the species composition.
Yep, You're finally catching on! We didnt have too many deer back then. |
Good points about in not being possible bb. Less deer shouldnt equal worse regeneration than when the all time high herd size existed in the north. Therefore imho you cannot blame the deer. Not when timbering practices are encouraging and enabling the deer damage.
What do you attribute the problem to? I can think of many things that could very well factor in.... Previously the huge clear cuttings were not effected by deer because of their sheer size. But dcnr & pgc dont want to cut more than 1% year (and often less) because they dont want to glut the market and lower prices, yet at the same time they dont want to live with the effects of NOT making larger cuts.... We have much more acidic soils than previously. Also tons upon tons of biomass having been removed via the logging through the years = less nutrients in the soils and slower growth rates. INvasives more of a problem. Those are just a few things that come to mind quickly. Anything you agree with, disagree with or can add to the list? |
Yep, You're finally catching on! We didnt have too many deer back then. |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3572337)
Wrong again. There were so many deer during the 1920's that they closed buck season in 1928 and had an antlerless only year. In the 1930's there were 1.3 M deer in just 30 counties which resulted in a density of over 40 DPSM. None of the NC counties have anywhere close to 40 DPSM today and they did before this latest round of HR initiated by Alt.
Wrong yourself bird! My post was in reponse to your reference to the turn of the century, not 28 years later. Once again, you've dodged the facts. The fact is that deer overbrowsing has contributed to a shift away from desirable species like oak and to undesireables like striped maple and black birch |
Wrong again. The post by me which you referred to contained no reference to DDs because we all know that DDs were very low during that period. The reference was to the environmental factors which Cornelius pointed out in his post. The changes in those conditions along with,changes in forestry practices may be as big a factor in the shift in species as browsing by deer.
|
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3572394)
Wrong again. The post by me which you referred to contained no reference to DDs because we all know that DDs were very low during that period. The reference was to the environmental factors which Cornelius pointed out in his post. The changes in those conditions along with,changes in forestry practices may be as big a factor in the shift in species as browsing by deer.
LOL! Duck and dodge! You're fairly good at shifting the subject around but not good enough! you still are ducking the issue of the shift from desirable to undesireable forest species and that deer have a lot to do with that. The issue was never whether the total amount of forest was shrinking. It was about the shift in species in the forests that have been harvested. |
The issue was never whether the total amount of forest was shrinking. It was about the shift in species in the forests that have been harvested. Wrong again??? RSB specifically stated that many cuts had no regeneration and became open meadows and DOUG agreed. Alt showed exlosures with heavy growth inside the exclosure and zero growth outside the exclosure. Initially they was little if any discussion about a shift in species and some claimed that everything but beech and cherry was over browsed. |
BB says: The changes in those conditions along with,changes in forestry practices may be as big a factor in the shift in species as browsing by deer. In the very next post btb says:LOL! Duck and dodge! You're fairly good at shifting the subject around but not good enough! you still are ducking the issue of the shift from desirable to undesireable forest species and that deer have a lot to do with that. |
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3572433)
.....HUH???:confused0024: Looks to me like it was DIRECTLY addressed!:eek2:
Making a point of the fact that the total amount of forest has grown a little bit without also acknowledging the shift to less desireable species is a classic example of telling part of the truth to present a false impression. thats exactly what happened in this thread. Once that pointed out, the best answer that Larry could come up with was that there may be other reasons besides deer...... well lets just look at a graphic example of the deers part in the whole thing......  the only factor that was different on opposite sides of this fence was the quantity of deer. got any evidence like that of the "other factors that MAY have had an impact" ? I ddnt think so! LOL |
Btb says: "Making a point of the fact that the total amount of forest has grown a little bit without also acknowledging the shift to less desireable species is a classic example of telling part of the truth to present a false impression." Once that pointed out, the best answer that Larry could come up with was that there may be other reasons There is nothing in that pic that proves a thing. You fail to recognize anything beyond the painfully obvious in this case. Deer ate the vegetation. So what? Thats what deer do. If the level of the herd is lower than other normal areas, and thats happening, that tells most rational people the "deer effect" is being magnified. Perhaps you can explain how that picture rules out the other variables mentioned by myself and bb previously? It doesnt one bit. Id also expect that explanation to include information detailing how you ruled out the size of the cut area as being a factor in increased deer impact, and also soil conditions effecting growth rate/recovery from browsing, etc. that has been stated. They are most certainly a factor. There is no way of looking at that picture and measuring the level of influence any one variable had as opposed to others. |
well lets just look at a graphic example of the deers part in the whole thing...... the only factor that was different on opposite sides of this fence was the quantity of deer. got any evidence like that of the "other factors that MAY have had an impact" ? I ddnt think so! LOL __________________ Also, please tell us what the DD was outside the fence. Did the fact that the best habitat in the area was fenced, result in severe over browsing of the surrounding area? Do you support a DD goal of zero DPSM as represented by the conditions inside the exclosure? |
I re-looked at the pic, this time from the site itself and looked at the full sized image for detail. Pretty clear just one small corner of a probably very small cut.
The cut outside the fence is choked out with ferns... Just like we said....Other factors. :barmy: |
"Also, please tell us what the DD was outside the fence." If there is ridiculous deer density, it would explain alot...that deer were to blame because of excessive density. If it were a reasonable widely accepted as normal density, itd also explain alot... that it the other factors spoken of... .......... Just finished snooping around the site where btb got his pic.. Didnt say the outside deer density of his particular picture, but had another example from CT. that said the deer density was originally OVER 100 DPSM outside the exclosure!!! Gee, I guess that would support the contention we have to have rock bottom dirt poor deer numbers in Pa eh? lmao. |
LOL!
The two of you are doing every kind of dance possible to avoid the fact that we are experiencing a substantial shift in plant species and in desperation you suggest other reasons. Where's the proof? I guess it's just pure coincidence that the species that have declined just happen to be the stuff that deer prefer. My whole point wasnt to argue that other things couldn't influence the species shift a little but surely no thinking grown man can justify citing any or all the "other reasons" over the effects of deer browsing. And again, till it was brought out, you made no mention of it. Telling only part of the story till someone else has to exposed the rest is what I'm making an issue of and it's an favorite old trick that the Bird likes to pull. Oh and Corny, please tell me you didnt really mean to use this one...... That may be an inconvenient truth |
You guys have got to be kidding me.The level of denial from you two is amazing.Thre was one variable removed in that situation and that vaiable is deer.It's extremely obvious that the deer prevented the regeneration outside of the fence.It doesn't matter what dd is outside of the fence.The habitat appears to be typical overbrowsed wasteland like is common all over the northcentral part of the state.The deer simply don't have enough food so they quickly ruin any new regeneration.In poor habitat,it doesn't take many deer to have that kind of impact.If the unfenced side of the exclosure had ferns,so did the fenced portion.
|
One variable was removed doug. But the others we spoke of was unaccounted for. Thats the problem. Zero deer = good regeneration is not a good scenario doug. lol.:lmao:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:08 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.