What is a truly "healthy" forest?

[BrandonTN]

I have a friend who is a consulting Restoration Ecologist; he restores native plants, and weeds out the exotic, in Tennessee.  I visited his farm yesterday, and he asked where I wanted to go in my forestry career.  I told him that I'm interested in Silviculture and would like to be involved with timber harvesting.  He brought up the point that healthy forest to a timber-harvesting forester, may be slightly different from a healthy forest to a wildlife conservationist.

My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?  Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?  Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

 

[crtreedude]

Hi Brandon - look up the terms Dauerwald and Continuous Coverage Forestry.  The problem with mono culture is that it is more at risk to become unhealthy.

But, that doesn't mean a mono culture is necessarily bad - for example, what if a mono culture is making it possible to leave other forest intact and virgin?

[Texas Ranger]

My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?  Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?  Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

In the order you asked.
Maybe, depends on the forester and landowner.  Same answer.  Yes.  Yes.

A plantation is a healthy plantation, an old growth southern yellow pine forest is an adult plantation, mostly SYP, and a few other species, clean under story, and a biological desert (the sand kind) for most wildlife. 

You need to think more in terms of even aged, and uneven aged management.  Plantation or natural.   I have stands that I have managed for 40 years, cutting every 12 or 15 years.  Wildlife abounds, healthy forest, hardwood pine mix,  and a pleasure to walk in.  The problem is in the merchandising, robber barons tern it into a war zone, a good forester maintains the land and forest for the future generations.

Every condition that existed pre-white still exist, to a certain extent.  If you leave a stand alone, over the next couple of hundred years, it will revert to the pre-white type. 

It is or can be ecologically healthy if the land owner wants it to be, and if he picks the right forester.  Here in lies another flaw, original landowner dies, his heirs strip the land for the fast buck.  See a lot of that.

Fred mentioned mono-culture, which in today's terms is a plantation.  But, in the pre-white days the southern yellow pine that stretched across American could also be called a mono-culture, as well as some of the western species, Alder and Aspen come to mind.

There is no one answer, it is the land owner, and the forester, and the future.

[Ianab]

A forest can be 'healthy', but modified. They can also be modified by natural effects, fires, drought, hurricanes etc.
The actions of man will alter the types and age of the trees, that affects the wildlife and the whole system. It changes the makeup of the forest and what life it supports. Wether thats good or bad depends on your point of view.

In terms of wildlife - a partially logged forest may actually be a more inviting habitat for many animals. There is more undergrowth and young regenerating seedlings, a mix of open ground and trees is a more inviting habitat for most larger wildlife. Like the others have said a mature 'oldgrowth' forest can be a pretty bare place under the canopy. A regenerating forest has young vigorus trees.

So the definition of 'healthy' will depend on if you ask a conservationist, a hunter or a logger. The ideal is some mix I guess.

Cheers

Ian

[Ron Scott]

From the Dictionary of Forestry:

Forest Health, the perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as its age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects, or disease, and resilience to disturbance.

Perception and interpretation of forest health are influenced by individual and cultural viewponts, land management objectives, spatial and temporal scales, the relative health of the stands that comprise the forest, and appearance of the forest at a point in time.

[tonich]

The ideal is some mix I guess.

This sums it up!

I never deal with ecologists. They have always been weird to me. At least, those who I know.  ;D
Nevertheless, your question can rise an interesting and useful discussion.

[WDH]

I don't think there is such a thing as a "healthy" forest in nature.  Nature just is, and things are just are....Remember the Lion King?  It is just a big circle. 

Healthy is a human contrived term.  A volcano could blow and wipe out an area.  Plants, animals, and bugs soon re-colonize.  Is that healthy?  To who, the bugs?

My issue with the concept of "healthy" is that is solely a function of your personal prejudice and personal bias.  I know what I think is healthy because of how I have been educated, both in school and in life.  It is probably different than yours.  In many places in the west and the northwest on National Forest land, commercial timber management has been halted.  While we were logging, we were affecting the natural cycle.  If nature does it on her own without our help, the timber grows old, senesces, fuel loads build up, the fire wipes it all out.  It all starts over again with a new mix of species.  After eons, the same old big trees are there again.  Then, the cycle repeats itself.  Is that a healthy forest? 

Man only gets in the middle and interupts the cycle for a while for his own personal benefit.  If man like cow meat, he selects for cows.  If man is scared of bears, he selects against them and pushes them out (for cows which he likes). 

In the end, we are just part of the Big Circle :-\.

[crtreedude]

Another thought and then I am over my limit for one day. Lets say you have a town with only Southerners in it who shall we say aren't too dark of skin.  : Everyone one them just might be very healthy - unless of course they are eating Grits and then we wonder... Don't mistake diversity and healthy.

For a forest to be healthy does not mean diverse. That would be a ecosystem. It is nearly impossible NOT to have animals if you have a forest - diversity of animals probably requires a diversity of trees.

Also remember that most pioneer species of trees tend to group together - cottonwoods, pines, etc into relatively pure stands - and tropical one that does the same is teak. (and yes it is a pioneer species and can't stand competition), but the trees of a mature forest tend to be more diverse here - like up to 200 or more types in a single forest. Not sure about northern forest.

[straightree]

It can be difficult to judge if a forest is truly healthy, but it is quite easy to compare two different forests, and conclude than one is healthier than the other. A mixed forest, for instance is healthier than a single specie one, because this one may be destroyed by a pest. I have a forest that was mainly chestnut, but fortunately there were also other species. Chestnuts are perishing because of blight, but the other species are replacing them.

[WDH]

A mixed forest, for instance is healthier than a single specie one, because this one may be destroyed by a pest.

Excellent point.

[Greg]

My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?  Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?  Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

In the order you asked.
Maybe, depends on the forester and landowner.  Same answer.  Yes.  Yes.

A plantation is a healthy plantation, an old growth southern yellow pine forest is an adult plantation, mostly SYP, and a few other species, clean under story, and a biological desert (the sand kind) for most wildlife. 

You need to think more in terms of even aged, and uneven aged management.  Plantation or natural.   I have stands that I have managed for 40 years, cutting every 12 or 15 years.  Wildlife abounds, healthy forest, hardwood pine mix,  and a pleasure to walk in.  The problem is in the merchandising, robber barons tern it into a war zone, a good forester maintains the land and forest for the future generations.

Every condition that existed pre-white still exist, to a certain extent.  If you leave a stand alone, over the next couple of hundred years, it will revert to the pre-white type. 

I have a problem with this statement. Pre european settlement, there were not HUGE pressures due to non native diseases and invasives.

Here in SW Ohio, some of our parkland and other forested areas is dominated in mature Ash, with honeysuckle everywhere on the ground and in the understory. When EAB kills all the Ash, all honeysuckle is going to go ape sh*t, and create dense thickets where natives will a real hard time re-establishing. (Not even getting into the garlic mustard and ailanthus issues.)

This is current a hot button issues for me, as I've been involved with a local township greenspace program. The general concensus I hear from alot of folks is that buying up land or locking it away with a conservation easement and applying "benign neglect" will lead to permanent, healthy greenspace and/or forests.

I am not so sure. I think it takes more than that, and am trying to get people to think about more active management/aggressively dealing with invasives, along the lines of Dauerwald and similar approaches.

Cheers,
Greg

[straightree]

Greg, I think that bening neglect, or no action, is an extreme, as it is an extreme a monospecies plantation for timber production, usually of rapid growth types. I am for a midle way. Actions depend a lot of actual stand condition, but it should be possible to stablish management practices with the objective of improving all aspects of forest: timber, wild life, biodeversity, aesthetics, recreation. I think a good objective is to favor mixed species forests, of uneven age, consisting mainly of local species, but considering also some non-native ones.

[crtreedude]

I would define healthy as a sustainable forest - one that serves the needs of all neighbors, whether human or not. Just like a healthy diet isn't just what I want to eat.  :

[mdvaden]

I have a friend who is a consulting Restoration Ecologist; he restores native plants, and weeds out the exotic, in Tennessee.  I visited his farm yesterday, and he asked where I wanted to go in my forestry career.  I told him that I'm interested in Silviculture and would like to be involved with timber harvesting.  He brought up the point that healthy forest to a timber-harvesting forester, may be slightly different from a healthy forest to a wildlife conservationist.

My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?  Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?  Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

 

Ha...ha...ha... :D :D :D

On a small town forum, I just replied about a similar forest related discussion, stating that I feel there's a big gap between a healthy forest and  "healthy forest" management logging.

That's because a healthy forest is not about healthy trees. Its bout healthy forests, which means healthy flourishing soils.

But I also keep in mind, that one forest can't be managed just like another forest.

The day that soil and micro-organisms are the first thing that comes to most silviculturists minds when "healthy forests" are mentioned, will probably be the day when we are on the right track to healthy forests. But not so much when trees are the first thing that comes to mind.

In western Oregon anyway.

[Brian Beauchamp]

The ideal is some mix I guess.

I never deal with ecologists. They have always been weird to me. At least, those who I know.  ;D

Are you including yourself in that statement?  ;D ...because as a forester, you are an ecologist!  ;)

[tonich]

I never deal with ecologists. They have always been weird to me. At least, those who I know.  ;D

Are you including yourself in that statement?  ;D ...because as a forester, you are an ecologist!  ;)

Of course!
But believe me, there are some, who are even more weird than I am.

Some of them believe cutting trees is not good ( )… which statement I couldn’t find in any silviculture textbook, nor proven by my overall practice so far. ;) ;D

[Rocky_Ranger]

I got'ta get in on this fray, seems "healthy forest" is getting taken into a discussion (since an ecologist was mentioned) as climax forest.  A healthy forest can exist in anything from a pioneer species monoculture forest to a climax forest.  Just because it's a climax doesn't mean it's healthy or not, just depends on what's the particular forest is being subjected to.  Pioneer plantations of loblolly or shortleaf pine are extremely healthy, as long as a pine beetle or pathogen doesn't come to town.  In silviculture we generally try to step back one successional "step" to not subject the biome to pressures of a monoculture, while also capturing growth not found in a climax system.  Of course I'm talking production forestry here, not intrinsic values. 

I think a healthy forest is like a good cup of coffee (or whiskey), you really can't explain what it is but know it exactly when you experience it.....

8)

[tonich]

Good point, RR!

It appears that almost all the successions are undesired – still they lead to loosing the pioneer species. I always use to take one step back or even more, when dealing with regeneration of pioneer species. Sometimes, my decisions are not popular, but I try to convince the owners and organizations concerned.
A very good tool for keeping and ruling the desired forest structure (incl. climax) is Selected Wood. Its main merit is sustainability (as already mentioned above).

[BrandonTN]

The day that soil and micro-organisms are the first thing that comes to most silviculturists minds when "healthy forests" are mentioned, will probably be the day when we are on the right track to healthy forests. But not so much when trees are the first thing that comes to mind.

That agrees with me.

I think what I was meaning to ask at the beginning of this thread is: Can there be such thing as biodiversity ("healthy" is the term I used) on a land used for timber?

I also liked how WDH objectified the whole approach to nature.  A nice existential dose for the day.  ;D  It's always good to keep the idea of different viewpoint...keeping an open-mind is essential. 
At the same time, the nature of my humanity is to be part-time sentimental, and it has stubborn requirements of biology:  It requires my environment to be arranged in a certain way, thus I strive to keep them that way. ;)

I liked to see more "sustainable forestry", ecologically speaking.  And a mass change of lifestyle for Americans; to adopt values not as materialistic, but more utililty-minded.  Like: value a car for it's use, not only its "style" or huge $$ value.  To consume less plastic, to use more recycled goods.  To generally lower wants.
If that could happen, atleast a little accross the table, in the home of common Americans, would that not be signifcant enough to change our situation to a more land-respecting one?

[Geoff Kegerreis]

I have a friend who is a consulting Restoration Ecologist; he restores native plants, and weeds out the exotic, in Tennessee.  I visited his farm yesterday, and he asked where I wanted to go in my forestry career.  I told him that I'm interested in Silviculture and would like to be involved with timber harvesting.  He brought up the point that healthy forest to a timber-harvesting forester, may be slightly different from a healthy forest to a wildlife conservationist.

I would agree with him on a general basis, as long as he is aware that there are foresters out there who participate in timber harvesting yet also work in other areas as well.

My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?

It depends on the forester.  "Ok, now this is a healthy forest." is a subjective statement, or rather more appropriately it is an opinion.  Next time you hear some "forester" say those words, ask him if he has sampled the nematode populations and whether he has determined that they are at adequate levels or not.  My point is, terms "healthy" and "ecosystem management" (the latter being a truly ridiculous idea) are subjective, lack information and generally are false statements.  Just because the trees are well stocked, healthy and the woods looks great doesn't mean it's "healthy".  The forest is a huge array of organisms having both independent and dependent roles.  It would take an enormous amount of resources to assure every aspect of the forest is healthy.  There are reasonable levels to take management based on it's focus.  My opinion is if the primary focus is commercial timber production, the forest is going to be lacking in ecological roles - simply because the manager has traded those roles to improve timber production.  Still - a forest in that condition (optimized for timber production) is WAY better off than having been mismanaged via a "high grade" or other exploitive logging process.

Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?

It will be lacking components to produce and sustain some ecological processes.

 

Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

Spotted owls live in "prime logging material".  If you clear cut it, it will move on to another stand that suits it's habitat preferences.
On the flip side of the coin, White tailed deer may move into a stand of deciduous timber that they've never been in if it's clear cut.

Wildlife habitats are very diverse.  What lives in a forest is dependent on lots of different criteria - not just the way it's managed.

So the answer is a "yes" in regard to some species that prefer that environment and "no" for those that do not.
[/quote]

[Montanaforester]

Forest health is 2 rings/inch

[Ron Wenrich]

I've seen some hardwood guys talking that they thought 1/4" dbh growth/year was pretty good.   

Are you getting that kind of growth in Montana?

[Cedarman]

I can be healthy today and come down with the flu tomorrow.  An ash can be healthy today and dead 2 years from now from EAB.
A forest can be healthy today,(lack of diseases and weather problems etc), and headed for big changes tomorrow.

The question seems to be, Can we make the forest what we want it to be? Can we control the environmental and human things that will change the forest?

Nature doesnt' give a squat about trees or animals.  Each animal and plant will do its best to survive with the conditions at hand.  Some make it most don't.

Healthy is a human determination, not natures.

Good and bad are human inventions.  Nature doesn't know the meaning.

[jim king]

Cedarman:  That is one of the finest answers I have seen.

Just a note from the South, here we get about an inch in dia per year of growth and some species over 2 inches.

[Jeff]

Cedarman:  That is one of the finest answers I have seen.

I really like that one as well.