depauperate sites

• Subject: depauperate sites
• From: DavidOrr <DavidOrr@aol.com>
• Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:27:35 EDT
• Approved-By: DavidOrr <DavidOrr@AOL.COM>
• Message-ID: <1d800358.352bcfa9@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/8/98 10:32:22 AM, you wrote:

>Incidently, I have no argument with your observation that actions such
>as girdling trees or mortality by burning can be very different than
>removal. However, I disagree with your generalization that normal
>biomass removal (i.e. logs) depauperates a forest ecosystem of nutrients
>since this is simply not true in the vast majority of forests I've
>studied from the Pacific Northwest to the south of Brazil.


Well, I suppose that your definition of depauperation differs from mine.
Would you agree that an old growth Doug Fir forest has lots more nutrients and
biomass onsite compared to a clearcut on the same site?  If so, then I have
proven my point.  If you disagree, then I would appreciate an explanation of
where I'm wrong.

Sincerely,
David Orr

• Prev: herbicides/summary of responses
• Next: New Inventory related publications
• Index: Forest mailing list April 1998
• Thread: Forest list subjects in April 1998