Five hundred years (speculation)

[Engineer]

Thsi probably belongs elsewhere in the FF, but I have been daydreaming, eh?  and wondering what the nature of the world's forests would be like if we eliminated the human race from the face of the planet for a period of five hundred years and then came back to evaluate growth patterns and the change in ecosystems.   

Any thoughts?  I know that there would obviously no longer be any "shortage" of wood or wood products, but would we continue to do plantation growth of trees for pulp?  Would the government consider everything "old growth" and not let anything be cut?    Would we continue to do salvage on old beams and submerged timber?   What would five hundred years do to the rainforest, or ten thousand acres of Appalachian hardwoods, or the redwoods in SoCal?

[isawlogs]

 I am not sure that it would look like .. I know that nature has its ways of taking care of things ,,, fire is one ... only the rain could take care of it if no one is around .

[Fla._Deadheader]

 I keep hearin from those that want to put the land back the way it was when Columbus came here. Haven't had nary a one show me a photograph that Columbus took. I guess that makes it all conjecture, EH ??

[beenthere]

.......Any thoughts?  I know that there would obviously no longer be any "shortage" of wood or wood products, ......

You imply there is a shortage of wood now. Why then is the price of oak going down so much?  I'd agree a shortage of American Chestnut, and old growth bald cypress but what other species?  

[Fla._Deadheader]

  Cocobolo= $20.00 bd/ft  Can't get the good stuff anymore ???

[Riles]

That's actually two questions and one is easier to answer than the other.

What would the forests look like in 500 years if man wasn't around? That's pretty easy, foresters have been studying primary and secondary succession for a while. Every forest type is different, so you can only make your predictions on specific areas. Surprisingly, old growth forests only became widespread after the Indians were killed off by imported diseases and shipped off to reservations. That window of time between the departure of the Indians and the mass settlement of the Europeans allowed forests to mature to old growth status. (That's not to say there weren't old growth forests, only that the effects of man, including the native americans, tend to suppress old growth. Think fire.)

The second question is mostly political. You're going to cut the best wood in the best way you can. If it's easier or cheaper to salvage old wood than cut trees, you'll do that. Plantations are a response to the lack of quality wood in natural stands. It's easier and cheaper. The fact that governments have made old growth harder and more expensive is really beside the point.

By the way, the best definition of old growth is a stand with trees that have died of old age (even an old growth forest has some young trees). You can get an old growth pine forest a lot faster than you can get an old growth sequoia forest. Funny how you get such a different emotional response between the two.

[SwampDonkey]

Sure is a loaded question. I'll digress for a moment. ;D I have alot of plantation on my woodlot. I have to say it's not a monoculture in any way. In fact, it's got more diversity than the natural woods that was there. In fact there are 6 native species that were not growing there before. These include red oak, butternut, tamarack, black spruce, white pine and hemlock. It also includes throughout, and not in patches the following species: balsam fir, cedar, red maple, sugar maple, black ash, white ash, aspen, poplar, yellow birch, white birch. Other species present are beech, basswood, scarlet oak, ironwood, white spruce, red spruce, black walnut and pignut hickory. Unless you eliminate the moose, deer and other rodents there will continue to be lots of pulp whether in plantations or natural regrowth. ;D

Getting back to the question though, I think it would take longer than 500 years for all the farmland here to revert back to hardwoods. That's what was predominately growing on our good farm soils. I think alot of the ground will be poplar, fir, birch and red maple for a long time. The seed source for sugar maple, beech, white pine, hemlock, white ash and yellow birch is substantially reduced in those areas obviously. The little birds better get real busy dropping seed on these fields. ;D How long will it take to revert back beyond the first 500 years? Pure speculation. As far as reverting back on the natural ground from say poplar-fir stands to hardwoods, I'de be surprised if 500 years wasn't sufficient. In fact we've already seen some stands starting to revert in 100 years and the quality of sugar maple is quite good when growing up under poplar provided you haven't got a rodent problem. We're still going to see 70 % pulpwood regardless because of our climate. ;D

[crtreedude]

500 years and you have old growth - a really old tree here is 350 years old. In the tropics, you don't tend to have really old trees. A tree of a hundred years is considered old.

This is because the way the system works - the trees get so big they fall over, create a corridor of light and this regenates the forest. We don't have pure stands of anything. Tropical rainforest just don't function that way.

[Ron Wenrich]

Beenthere

The reason the price of oak is dropping is because the demand is dropping, not the supply.  The supply of hard maple is up, but so is demand.  So, the price is up.

Riles

I'm not too sure about the Indian theory for vast areas of the northeast.  It might have been in limited areas where they set the woods on fire, but fires were probably more related to lightning strikes.

I was always under the impression that plantation wood was for faster growth, not necessarily lumber quality.  When you get those wide growth rings, it seems like the quality goes down. 

As for the original question, I think a lot of stands in the northeast would be either approaching or have reached climax.  That means that the more shade tolerant species would be dominant.  It would also have a large effect on deer populations, since feed would be a big problem.   Other species that need brush for cover would be in short supply.

As for the government, I think it would have changed over 500 years.  Would they cut it?  Sure.  It would be in abundance.  There wouldn't be any need to preserve something in such abundance.  When it gets scarce, then it needs protection.

[Ianab]

Hmm... 500 years the Rimu tree I planted down the back might be ready to mill  :D

[Gary_C]

In regard to the removal of the Indians creating the old growth forests, the accounts I have read actually credited the Indians with creating the old growth forests with their practices of burning the undergrowth. In fact there are some accounts of the amazement of the European settlers that "you could ride through the eastern hardwood forests on your horse at full gallop and not knock your hat off." Their practice of very regular burning of the undergrowth and grasses prevented the large fires that can get hot enough to move to the tops and create those devastating fires that we see now.

This was as much true in the east as it was in the west. The Indians did not fear the fires because they were nomads. They moved their camps with the seasons and with their food supply. It was when the white settlers built permanent homes on the land that the Indians had to be locked up on reservations so the burning could be stopped.

Now everyone reveres the result of their management technique but will not go back because we have built all those permanent holmes in the forests. We also think the US Forest Service should be in the business of protecting those "at risk homes."   

As far as what it would look like in 500 years, you could only say it depends. Depends on the climate during that 500 years and if there was any management at all. If the climate was dry, you could expect more fires and perhaps less forests because of fires. With global warming, less land, more water, and more vegitation, not necessarily trees. With a new ice age as some are predicting, more snow and perhaps CR becomes Minnesota?  ;D

[Jeff]

Everything will be under a sheet of ice as the next ice age will be in full swing.  Glaciers harvested most of the trees by 2300, but its predicted that the Northern Boreal forests will be back again by 2850


----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------*------------
----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------

(Asteric denotes this 1000 year period of discussion in a time line.)

[maple flats]

I think that there would not be that muct real old growth. It takes time for the succession to progress to the point where the stand are ripe to age to old growth. 500 years would certainly reduce some subordinate species but the dominate ones might not have had ample time to attain old growth. I feel that we can do better by proper TSI and if maintained  over multiple generations some old growth could develope, but there is a point of diminishing return on the development of any tree and most would suffer such long lifetimes. Man just does not have the real long range stewardship stick-to-it-tiveness. (is that a real word? ???

[Engineer]

Maybe the next question to ponder is: 

What will happen to the Earth's forests in a span of five hundred years if the human population (obviously) remains on the planet and continues in its' current course?  If the answer to that offends you, then what can we do to change it?

Maybe a bit too philosophical here, but  ???

[beenthere]

cktate has 'an' answer for that..........

[solodan]

In fact there are some accounts of the amazement of the European settlers that "you could ride through the eastern hardwood forests on your horse at full gallop and not knock your hat off." Their practice of very regular burning of the undergrowth and grasses prevented the large fires that can get hot enough to move to the tops and create those devastating fires that we see now.

This was as much true in the east as it was in the west.

Gary, you're right this was very true in the west as well. because of the supression of fire, our forests have become grossly overgrown. A study I heard recently from a local fire safe program suggested that in 1848, the year before the gold rush, the Sierra Nevada had only 24 conifers per acre. This seems pretty thin to  most people now who see these forest in their curent state of up to 800 trees per acre.  would 500 years change anything? yes, but it has already been messed with by man. The forest might not go back to it's condition as it was before we messed with it. more than likely the forest would take on a new path based upon what condition it is currently in. New trees have been introduced, and dying species have been saved. this changes alot. Studies suggest that at one time sequoias dominated the northern hemesphere, but man stepped in at this trees end.
sequoias have been planted all around for ornamentals, and even though 500 years would not make these trees mature by their standards they still may exist, whereas they may not have if man had not changed the course of nature.

[Max sawdust]

500 years is a blink of time, sure you get old growth, but in Northern Wisconsin the forest is in succession from the clear cut in 1900.  Birch-Aspen-Oak are replaced by longer living species like Maple and the native Red and White pines, and then nothing changes on less than 10,000 year scale like evolution.  Only Fire and Ice do the landscaping and evolution tweaks it all. 

From my expedience in southern Wisconsin farmland right next to a woods will start to reforest in 20 years, areas away will take much much longer (I think longer than 500 years)

Then as JeffB said we are about due for an Ice age.

Second part about humans coming back seems kinda narrow minded.  I am confident the last things on our minds would be conservation or salvage. First everything we build would be gone and second much of  the farmland would be gone and it would take a lot of work to get it recleared.  We would have MASS STARVATION.  Governments would fail (In my opinion they already are anyway.) Chaos and confusion and we would devolve and most likely do a worse job than our forefathers.

Anyway time to get my gun and go shoot a deer, since it is the Wisconsin opener today.  (I do not plan on starving when we come back in 500 years) :D :D (Yes I realize I would have to make a bow cause there would be no bullet factorys in working order.)
Max

[crtreedude]

I think that the current course of mankind is adjustment. This is why we live all over the globe - we adapt.  Mankind might be a lot of things, but it isn't stupid. As it gets clearer and clearer that certain things are against the survival of us, change happens. Often the attempts are often misguided, but we learn from our mistakes.

This I think is why our species is so dominate - we learn.  We don't make good decisions often because emotion and bad information get in the way - but we continue to learn. One legacy I have from 20+ years of working in the computer field is know that software really isn't designed, it evolves. Don't let anyone tell you different. The reason your computer acts up so much is that problems being solved are greater than most humans developers can handle - but we can do an attempt, then adjust, adjust, adjust. These are called patches... Notice that Microsoft has decided this is the way to go. Hard to argue with a person who has made 67 billion dollars - I suspect Bill Gates has had studies done.

Much like sawing wood. I would dare say that most people don't start off cutting perfect planks, but with trial and error, they get there. There are always the peanut gallery who is yelling nothing will ever be good enough, but those who roll up their sleeves and have at it, get better.

The debate on the environment is good - coming from both sides, and we are changing. I will not presume to know where we should eventually be - but I honestly believe we will get there.

The original idea in the environmental movement was to protect the forest by leaving it alone. That is changing. Now the idea is more that WE are part of the forest. True, you have some die-hards who are convinced that isolation is the way to go - but the truth is, those areas get destroyed eventually.

We need some areas that are left alone as genetic banks - but we also need to work with the forest. Lot's of neat stuff on this - and it sure includes harvesting trees.

Just my dos colones.

[Riles]

Ron, you're right about the Indians and the northeast, my mistake. My source was a wildlife in the South course. The point was made that a biologist came through Louisiana in the early 1700's and found elk and bison. The only way that could happen is if somebody was opening up enough land for big animals to graze. Not enough Europeans at the time, so it must have been the natives. When they disappeared, so did the grasslands and the elk, and the forests matured.

[TexasTimbers]

A little off topic but here's what happened to a tribe of folks who were "removeed from their culture" for 500 years......

"Cultureless" for 500 Years?!

[rpg52]

Interesting question, a corollary might be what will our forests look like in 500 years if we continue to manage them?  I would hope that we might learn something and be better managers than we are currently.  As various people have said, "it depends", which is always the case.  The Native Americans in my area of Calif. managed for large oaks, where they were appropriate, because of the acorn crops they were dependant on.  In other areas, they managed for large conifers, because that was what resulted with frequent fires that manipulated the other vegetation types (wild filberts, willows, ferns, sedges, etc. for baskets and weaving;  bulbs, clovers for food).  Hunting was better with openings through the trees too, etc.  In the Pacific Northwest, there were different cycles, it was too wet for frequent burning, so catastrophic stand replacing fires every 500-1000 years was the rule.  Those people were more concerned with managing for salmon.  What might we be doing in 500 years?  It seems likely that fire, the cheapest veg management tool available will be used with more intelligence than we currently do.  In other areas the forests will surely be managed differently.  Hopefully, we will get a lot better at what we do to our forests.  We Northern Euro-Americans forget what a young culture we are, until we visit an area occupied continually for a few thousand years.  (I visited Japan recently, but there are lots of other areas that have a cultural heritage more than 150 years old.)  So much to learn, and pass it on to our children and their children.   :P
Ray

[Riles]

The ironic thing is, the more we appreciate the role of fire as a management tool, the less we can use it. The liability issues of blowing smoke minimizes where you can use the tool more and more every day. Mechanical harvesting for biomass seems to be the up and coming tool in the understory for the south.

[OneWithWood]

A likely scenario is that within the next 500 years Yellowstone will have popped, decemating much of N. America and levelling the bulk of the forests.  New growth will eventually push through the ash.  Most of the human population and other mamals will have vanished from the area.  The earth will be rebuilding as ususal.

[ely]

riles, during that timeframe, i think the bison that were present were probably the woods bison as opposed to the american bison. i am no expert by any means but i understand that an explorer once wrote a book about his travels about that time and made mention of the wood bison that inhabited what is now arkansas and several other states in the area. seems it was similar in appearance but smaller in size to the american bison.

with the plethora of knowledge here would anyone have a copy of the book/journal penned by the explorer Frederick Gerstacker (sp)

[etat]

cktate has 'an' answer for that..........

Wish I could remember what it was!!!!!!!!!   8) 8) 8)