next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01D14AD7.B5AA5C80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Don=E2=80=99t be discouraged, Nick! Everyone is making important points, a=
nd if excessive, unnecessary micro-analysis leads to some stuff not being r=
ead, so be it. I think it=E2=80=99s better to err on the side of including=
unimportant stuff, rather than of excluding important stuff. J
I think Doug=E2=80=99s comment about the need for a policy on biomass burni=
ng is spot-on, and will raise with TREPA, of which I=E2=80=99m Exec. Direct=
or. I=E2=80=99ll probably end up suggesting something to the effect that b=
iomass burning is acceptable to the extent that it does not deplete natural=
resources.
Howzzat??
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] =
On Behalf Of Nicholas Hill
Sent: January 9, 2016 10:10 AM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: Fwd: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry
David
It's exasperating to never get anywhere to encounter argument for its own s=
ake seemingly not directed anywhere but always under the guise of going aft=
er truth. People on this Nature NS site should expect that we are not wast=
ing their time and should not want to relegate the site to the junk box as =
they do.
We can all pick arguments and go after the holes of everything..COP21, mult=
iculturalism, trade unions, evidence for acid rain and calcium depletion, u=
tility of parks and protected areas..whatever. Sometimes there is a point, =
other times however, it seems the point is diluted by the fact that reasona=
ble conclusions are undermined by endless microanalysis that makes us want =
to
throw up our hands and say maybe Nature NS cannot the place for useful dis=
cussion leading to conclusion.
I was starting to argue again, to make straightforward ecological points, t=
o provide general patterns, but you have exhausted this thread as you may h=
ave exhausted others on this list serve.
Nick
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:20 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com=
> wrote:
Hi Doug & All, Jan 8, 2016
I am partial to evidence based conclusions. I have yet to see any exper=
imental results based on NS material. All I have received are fragments of =
the Gospel according to Nick & David P. If the evidence is so great and obv=
ious why is it being kept a secret ?
The example which I quoted recently, and not explained, still has me wo=
ndering if the fuss about drastic Ca depletion is more than a fad in some c=
ases and perhaps all cases. This was from Table 2 in Lawerence and Huntingt=
on; given without background information.
A site classified as highly sensitive to calcium depletion (Coweeta) ha=
s 1370 kg/ha exchangeable Ca, total Ca of 11500 kg/ha total Ca and Net Calc=
ium depletion of 6.6 kg/ha/year. So exchangeable Ca, assuming no recycling =
from Mixed Hardwood litter and foliage leaching which is of course false [M=
ost Ca in such litter would be released within a year], would be sufficient=
for only 207 years. Note to self: urgent; order a truckload of lime to be =
delivered in 100 years.
And Total Ca, in some undisclosed fraction of the rooting zone, of whic=
h the major portion would be bound in minerals [and such weathering would b=
e speeded by the acidity of acid ppt.] would be sufficient once released t=
o last only 1700 years.
I am partial to free and open evidence-based discussion. This latest mo=
ve; an official Nature NS policy sounds like a move to muzzle discussion an=
d replace it by worship of some ad-hoc form of Religion. If that in fact p=
roves to be the case then Naturens will wither to a bird watch forum or som=
e dust on a cobweb.
In one of my recent e-mails I indicated the merits of research into thi=
s and many other related questions. That bounced somewhat less than a dead =
cat.
The will be many Science Graduates in the near future with no prospect =
of a job. And in my view there are a multitude of questions to be investiga=
ted. Why are the self-appointed High Priests of Nature NS so fearful of tru=
th being laid bare ?
Nick, as came to light recently, I knew more about the history of charc=
oal forests in your UK area than you did. Is it perhaps possible that I kno=
w almost as much as you do about barrens in my backyard ? You speak of "ove=
rharvest transforming landscape into lower equilibrium states (e.g. shrub b=
arrens here and in NL)",
Do you have documentary evidence of when these barrens carried a crop o=
f trees and when they were cut ? Where exactly are these barrens ? Have you=
examined for traces of charcoal well below the litter layer by flotation ?=
What textures and soil depths are represented ? Good soil or good highway =
fill too shallow to bother mining ?
For example, the large barren west of the Costley homestead on Route 12=
(just this side of the Salmontail River) was referred to by one of the Cos=
tleys (Milton or Truman) as "the fire barrens". It goes back to the mid-180=
0s if not earlier. And it seems likely that these barrens had help getting =
and remaining in that state. All Lowbush Blueberries were harvested wild in=
those days and those living in Nova Scarcity needed to use all possible ed=
ibles.
When my father was young [late 1800s, early 1900s] he and my grandfathe=
r (as I learned by chance from some Costley70+ years later) used to drive o=
ut (horse and buggy; by star, moon or slack reins both ways) every year to =
pick blueberries and return to Cambridge, Kings Co with a year's supply. Hi=
s father David Costley was famous as a bear hunter and elderly when he was =
decorated by Queen Victoria (early 1900s ?) for the many Bear hides he had =
provided. One can be reasonably sure that Blueberries were the bear draw.
As recently as 1960 there was an area near Aldershot which used to catc=
h fire at a convenient time so there would be a renewal of the plants and b=
etter crops for a few years. Vaccinium a. is not shade tolerant so decent s=
tands would tend to develop where light coarse soil texture could support o=
nly scattered Pines, runty Betula populifolia and the like.
And in addition to the fires set in relatively recent times by intent, =
fires started by lightening or careless use of fire would be expected to ad=
d to the roster over time. And before European settlers arrived there were =
Indians for 8,000 to 10,000 (?) years and it would be strange indeed it the=
y over time did not have fire barrens until the berry plants played out. To=
survive here, using stone age culture, I expect that on average they were =
a good deal more intelligent than the average modern University Prof. so th=
ey surely would have used fire and made good use of these berries.
I am