David,
I agree that the techniques that have been suggested appear to be
heavy-handed. However, you don't repair broken bones by thinking good
thoughts and prescribing aspirin either. In some cases, the bone cannot be
fixed by normal methods and artificial components must be added to restore
some function to the limb.
Speaking for our area and our specific situation alone, the ecosystem has
degraded to such an extent that we are faced with two possibilities: 1) do
nothing and let it pass away; or, 2) use a sledge-hammer to restore a forest
with some resemblance to a native, naturally functioning system (recognizing
that we will never be able to reproduce the original state). A light-handed
approach in our situation just doesn't appear possible because of the
condition of the stand and the history of the site.
When this area was first explored by Europeans (our base-line time frame),
it consisted of a fire-maintained system comprised of longleaf and slash
pine with a wiregrass understory and a scrubby hardwood mid and understory
at best. This was followed by conversion to agriculture, with no trees, for
a period of about 100 years, at which time the land was acquired by the Air
Force. Management of the property by the Air Force (until about 10 years
ago) consisted of planting off-site loblolly pine with no thinning and no
controlled burning. The resultant forest I am now facing is comprised of
60-year old loblolly and longleaf pines with a significant hardwood midstory
and understory. Several prescribed fires were attempted several years ago,
but failed to kill the hardwoods because of their large size and the poor
fuel continuity underneath the forest.
So, since the natural forces that shaped the forest don't function now, I
don't see how we have much of a choice but to apply artificial methods to
try to restore the ecosystem as much as possible. I know we will not obtain
a native longleaf pine ecosystem with this approach. But, like the
introduction of the western Peregrine Falcon to the east or the Canadian
wolves to Yellowstone, wouldn't a similar substitute that is a shade of the
original be better than nothing?
We are not utilizing chemicals in this restoration process because the Air
Force policy, at least at this installation, prohibits the use of chemicals,
even selectively applied chemicals. Our treatment will probably consist of
some type of mechanical removal followed by intensive controlled burning.
I don't understand your assertion that "if your goal is to restore a native
ecosystem structure, you don't want to lose the biomass." I am dealing with
an unnatural invader into the system. If you were trying to restore an
aquatic ecosystem that had been invaded by an unnatural member, such as
hydrilla, surely you wouldn't oppose the removal of the hydrilla biomass.
We are applying the same argument to an upland site.
Chipping and poisoning may destroy ecosystem values, but I fear we have very
little ecosystem value left to destroy. And if nothing is done, we will
lose what little ecosystem value we do have left.
Sorry about the length.
Greg Lee
>I strongly oppose chipping and chemical treatment. If your goal is
to restore
>a native ecosystem structure, you don't want to lose the biomass
and you don't
>want to introduce synthetic chemicals into the system.
>The science of restoration is in its infancy. Truth is, we don't
know if it's
>possible to truly restore an ecosystem. Chipping and poisoning
destroy
>ecosystem values. Employing those approaches would be sort of like
a doctor
>using a sledgehammer to set a broken bone.
>David Orr
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0