next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
conifer (boreal) forest now lie bare, al
Hi Randy & All, Dec 4, 2007
For starters, I did not intend my comments to be an argument, simply
comments and my 'good thing' 'bad thing' labels were in the
tongue-in-cheek spirit of 1066.
That being said, I think whether or not a species, the introduction
of a species or any other change has a positive (good) or a negative
(bad) effect in a given context is a valid question. This came up (I
think I raised it) a year or so ago. The assumption that non-native
species are by definition undesirable leads directly to waste motion
such as the BSLB "containment".
I don't recall my exact wording but, in essence, a positive effect
would be one that increases biological energy flow on a sustained basis
and of course negative would be the converse.
Over the last several months I have been reading The Republic of
Plato, most of it for the first time, and have been astonished to see
how relevant much of the reasoning is to modern (i.e. timeless)
questions. On the difference between good and evil (sheet 608)-- "I hold
that the term evil comprises everything that destroys and corrupts, and
the term good, everything that preserves and benefits."
The idea that nature always knows best does not stand up to
scrutiny. On this basis one must assume that being buried under ice
again and again for 90,000 years out of 100,000 (most of Canada) was
just great. And if that was great, then why was not being buried under
ice (most of the USA) also great ? Nature is indifferent and mankind
from day one has dared to think that improvements upon nature, by way of
shelter, clothing, tools, fire... are not only possible but necessary.
Improving upon nature in the terrestrial context need not mean
massive redesign of ecosystems, agriculture excepted. The economics of
Forestry usually demand zero or limited 'improvements'. But if some
development, such as introduction of earthworms, or some condition such
as presence of native earthworms, were to improve tree growth by
improving the soil profile then how is it possible to suppose this to be
detrimental ? Decreasing the time that it takes to grow a saw log is
equivalent to decreasing the land area devoted to commercial forestry.
Why is that undesirable ?
An improved soil profile leads directly back to the concept of
maximum biological energy flow because soil is the engine of terrestrial
biology; an improved soil profile implies potential for greater energy
flow. [For much of NS the potential effect of earthworms is entirely
academic because soil is limited to a skim of mineral soil over
bedrock.] But in those areas where soil improvement is possible then I
would favor objective study of earthworm effects as opposed to studies
of the detrimental effects of invasive exotic earthworms (and other
dirty rotten scoundrels).
As a consequence of any change there are almost certain to be
winners and losers. Attention to the overall balance sheet as opposed to
selected negative effects (real or imagined) helps one to keep a sense
of proportion.
And speaking of proportion, I suspect that the ongoing and
cumulative effects of acid rain and ozone, such that growing a Spruce
tree in the Valley past 80 years is nearly impossible, and other air
pollution, such that breathing can be painful (Don't animals also breath
? Where can they go during smog alerts ?) is an unimaginably huge
mountain compared to the insignificant molehill of negative earthworm
effects.
So far as I am aware, Moose may thrive or not thrive independently
of budworm. So far as I know budworm was not a factor in the expansion
of Moose in Newfoundland, where Fir is a Moose staple I think.
They were planted in the CB park ~1940 (?) and by ~1952, when I
first went up the Indian Rising on the Clyburn, a few sheltered just
below the steep climb near the crest (old snow banks spangled with Moose
droppings in late (?) June) and there were sparse signs on the Barrens.
Over the next 25-30 years Moose sign on the Barrens and below this crest
gradually increased but, in spite of ample feed in various river
valleys, I don't recall having seen Moose sign in the valleys. Trees
that start growth late are free of budworm so surely budworm did not
make inroads in the conifers that fill the ravines on the barrens.
So I am wondering where budworm took off in the CB Park. Hunter's
Mountain, well known for Moose, escaped I think but the hills near West
Bay were nearly swept clean of conifers and the very sparse Moose became
absent.
The budworm event near West Bay yielded to me a new insight into
Yellow Birch. In old stands, Yellow Birch are frequently on root stilts
and I had come to suppose that rotting logs were especially favorable to
Yellow Birch establishment. But the budworm dieback of conifers
demolished that idea. In many places Yellow Birch seedlings came up as
thick as hair on a dog's back and the trees, in spite of being crowded,
did very well. So rotting logs may offer some survival value to
seedlings where competition with mature trees for summer moisture is
intense but, in the absence of large trees, mineral soil is fine.
Beaver did very well for a time and dams popped up in the most
unlikely places. Deer, with the next 50 years of winter Usnea feed
dispensed in 5, thrived for a few years and then approached zero. It
reminded me of "The Land of Feast and Famine", an excellent account of
living, sometimes barely, off of the land.
Yours truly, Dave Webster, Kentville
Randy Lauff wrote:
>
> What I really think is missing from your argument is the lack of an
> assessment on whether humans think earthworms (or any introduced
> species) are "good" or "bad". i.e. It should not matter one iota if we
> think something is "good" or "bad" ... it should not come into the
> argument.. In this example, why should aeration of the soils be good?
> Prior to earthworms being here, did aboriginals and early Europeans
> utter, "tsk, tsk...what poor forests there are here...let's get some
> worms!" Of course not.
>
>
>
> What's wrong with what's right?" What's right is the natural dynamics
> of any particular habitat.
>
>
>
> We have to stop making judgements based on our perceptions of
> good/bad..."In other words, how dare we think we can improve upon nature!
>
>
>
> Earthworms may be good for your carrots, they "may" be good for your
> garden as a whole (though I believe the native organisms are quite
> sufficient), but they get into the wilderness and undeniably change
> things.
>
>
> Should we spray for Spruce Budworm? In the National Parks? In your
> backyard? Budworm is considered "bad", and if I made my living
> harvesting trees, I might tend to agree in a self-centered sort of
> way. Go up to the Highlands National Park and see the wonder! Lots of
> snags and logs, lots of amazing habitat for moose and other creatures.
> Although foresters damn the budworm, moose hunters adore it (many
> don't know it though) since the budworm created the habitat that
> allowed the moose to dynamically increase to the high levels of today.
> To whom should we pander?
>
>
>
> Let it be.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Randy Lauff
>
>
>
> On 02/12/2007, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com
> <mailto:dwebster@glinx.com> > wrote:
>
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>
>
> In 1946, mull soils and the associated rapid incorporation of
> recent litter into the soil profile by earthworm or large
> arthropod activity were regarded as being highly desirable [as
> opposed to the
> relatively poor, shallow, drouth-prone, species-poor,
> earthworm-free, mor soils].
>
> For reasons that I fail to understand, this previous 'good
> thing' is now a 'bad thing'. Perhaps it is just an expression of
> the 20-year academic pendulum cycle. If so, then any year now the
> discovery will be made that earthworm activity is a 'good thing'
> in forest soils.
>
> Overall forest health will probably not be affected by this
> swing in spin.
>
> Yours truly, Dave Webster
>
> _________________________________
> RF Lauff
> Way in the boonies of
> Antigonish County, NS.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects