ON THE RANGE
See the Forest for the Trees
By George Wuerthner, 3-30-09
There’s an old cliché that one can’t see the forest for the trees. It is used to describe people who are so focused on some detail that they fail to see the big picture. Nowhere is this failure to see the forest for the trees more evident than the rush to utilize dead trees for biomass fuel s and/or the presumed need to “thin” forests to reduce so called “dangers” and/or “damage” from wildfire and beetle outbreaks.
Contrary to popular opinion, we probably do not have enough dead trees in our forest ecosystems. And this deficit is a serious problem since dead trees are critical to the long term productivity of forests, and perhaps more important to forest ecosystems than live trees. Dead trees are not a “wasted” resource. It is questionable whether we can we remove substantial quantities of live or dead wood from the forest without serious long term biological impoverishment to forest ecosystems.
An abundance of dead trees, rather than a sign of forest sickness as commonly portrayed, demonstrates that the forest ecosystem is functioning perfectly well. For far too long we have viewed the major agents responsible for creation of substantial qualities of dead trees--beetles and wildfire—as “enemies” of the forest, when in truth; they are the major processes that maintain healthy forest ecosystems.
Recent research points out the multiple ways that dead trees and down wood are critical to the forest. One estimates suggests that 2/3 of all species depend on dead trees/down wood at some point in their lives.
Dead trees are very important for functioning aquatic ecosystems as well. Trees create structure in streams that shapes stream channels, reduces water velocity and erosion, and provides both food and habitat for many aquatic invertebrates. In general the more wood you have in the stream, the more fish, insects, and other aquatic life. Aquatic ecologists generally believe that there is no upper limit for dead wood in streams.
Once a tree falls to the ground and gradually molders back into the soil, it provides home to many small insects and invertebrates that are the lifeblood of the forest, that help recycle and produce nutrients important for present and future forest growth. For instance, there are hundreds of species of ground nesting bees that utilize down trees for their home. These bees are major pollinators of flowers and flowering shrubs in the forest.
Ants are among the most abundant invertebrates in the forest and many live in down trees and snags. Ants play a critical role in the forest, helping to break down wood, aeration of soil with their burrows, and protection of trees against the onslaught of other insects. One study found that ants killed 85% of the tussock moths that attacked Douglas fir and there are many other examples of how ants protect trees from tree predators.
And it’s not just wildlife that depends on dead trees. A recent review of 1200 lichen species found that 10% were only found on dead trees, and many others prefer dead trees as their prime habitat. Lichens, among other things, are important convertors of atmospheric nitrogen into fixed nitrogen important for plant growth.
Even the charcoal that results from wildfires burning up trees is important for soil productivity, helping to increase soil nutrients, water-holding capacity, and as a long-term storage mechanism for carbon.
Most beetle and wildlife events do not kill all the trees. Instead, they create a mosaic of age classes that actually increases biodiversity. Contrary to the popular opinion that beetles “destroy the forest” and fires “sterilize” the soils or create biological deserts, several recent studies have concluded that both beetle killed forests and the burned forests that result remain after stand replacement wildfires have among the highest biodiversity of any habitat type.
Notwithstanding, the fact that much new research suggest that both thinning or biomass removal are often ineffective at slowing or stopping large fires or insect outbreaks because these events are primarily driven by climatic/weather factors rather than fuels, there is the issue of whether the cure is worse than the so-called disease.
Logging, thinning, biomass removal and other forest management introduce all kinds of negative impacts to the forest ecosystem from the spread of weeds to soil compaction to alteration of water flow, disturbance to wildlife, creation of new ORV trails, increases in sedimentation, that all lead to the degradation of the forest ecosystem itself. Most of these negative impacts are ignored or glossed over by proponents of thinning and biomass removal.
In short, current efforts to thwart, and stop beetle outbreaks and wildfires create “unhealthy forests”. In fact, nearly everything that foresters do from thinning forests to suppressing fires degrades and impoverishes the forest ecosystem. Forest “management” is so focused on trees and wood products, that it represents a critical failure to see the forest through the trees.
Wow! George. You're doing your damn level best to figure out reasons why people shouldn't use the forests. You're turning into an environmental fundamentalist in your old age.
Comment By Johnny Thundersockeye, 3-31-09I can concur with many of your points ,but a liitle human-induced disturbance can be a good thing,in places where biodiversity and species richness are held back from remaining at or close to climax stage for too long,wildlfe habitat can be enhanced through some thinning and logging.Its all site-specific,a little logging here and more preservation over there-COMPROMISE!!As long as some folks demand that no silviculture or forestry occurs ANYWHERE EVER -this debate will rage on as it has for decades!!!George ,even if you are correct from a scientific standpoint-you will NEVER! get everybody on board with that logic.It may work in an idealistic,ecological sense but not in a civic minded sociological sense,unfortunately!!You will NEVER get rural Westerners to look at forests ONLY as an ecosystem,even if what you say makes perfect sense to those of us who see way more than lumber.
Comment By Geo, 3-31-09Dear Mickey and Johnny:
What I am trying to do is is suggest there is no free lunch. There is a cost to everything. And if we don't consider all the costs, we can't make good decisions.
Unfortunately our society is used to ignoring the environmental costs of almost everything we do--from burning fossil fuels that is contributing to global climate change to the loss of top soils as a result of agricultural practices.
We can make better choices when we account for all the costs. As a society we might decide that the hell with it--let someone else pay for our excesses in the future--the attitude that usually prevails. Or in some cases, we actually try to capture the costs so that people can decide whether they want something bad enough to pay the real costs.
Just remember Nature doesn't give bail outs.
Mickey and Johnny
Let me try another analogy. Most teenagers when they get their first car think the only cost is the price of the car. But as all of know owning a car is much more expensive than merely the purchase price. There is insurance, cost of fuels, cost of repairs, buying new tires on occasion, cost of parking the car if you live in a city, and so forth. And of course, we could throw in the environmental costs associated with cars as well--air pollution, etc. But teenagers focus on the price tag on the car sitting on the lot and often neglect to think about the real costs of car ownership.
If someone is going to make a good decision about whether to buy a car or perhaps what car and how much you might drive it, etc. you need to know as many of the costs as possible. All I am trying to do is make people recognize there are a lot of "costs" to biomass removal from a forest that are currently ignored--society is like a teenager.
Johnny I suspect you are correct that people will never volunteer to consider these costs--but those costs are being forced on them involuntarily whether they like it or not.
For instance, when you remove too much biomass along streams so that streams are deficit in dead wood and the fishing declines--your quality of life declines and you are paying for the real costs.
And when you remove the dead wood and the predatory insects on trees increase even more than normal (and episodic insect outbreaks are normal) than you pay the consequences.
We operate under the assumption that we can significant manipulate of our ecosystems and removal of materials without serious consequences. That's an assumption I'm trying to show may be incorrect. Until you ask such questions, you find that you don't get answers.
As I was trying to convey ,I totally understand ecologically where your coming from!!- It just seems to me that we are never going to get on with saving these incredibly important gems from the RARE era such as Great Burn,Scotchman and Northwest Peaks,Yaak lands,East Pioneers etc. until We as collaborators can convince the ATV-snowmobile folks,Timber industry,ranchers,road hunters etc. that there will still be plenty of unrestricted access and opportunity for their chosen traditional pursuits,be they economically or ethically feasible or not. Personally after watching this unfold for 20 + years IM ready for sprinkles and sparkles of hope through baby steps on a local level rather than more bickering ,litigation and "analysis paralysis".For example pertaining to Great Burn country,I would much rather see the core protected designated W so that by and large it will be preserved to provide the crucial widlife habitat corridor linkage to the Selkirk-Purcell eco and SAlmon-Selway zones that we need for species like wolves and Griz not to be genetically isolated and then on to Mallard-Lakins etc. If in order to do that we must give up say Petty mountain-Grave Creek country to ATVS and logging and say Rhodes Peak to snowmobilers,Well then OK,thats compromise and Great Burn is more critical to ecosystem health.ITS got to be a mixture and if We can save the most crucial roadless areas left , the best of whats left may mean we have to give up some slightly less pristine spots to different uses,well then I still think We'll be better off than saving nothing and neither side being satisfied.Hopefully the state bill your speaking of can evolve in to such an all encompassing collaboration,by GODS GRACE!-I think we know it will take a miracle!!!!
Comment By Geo, 3-31-09Johnny:
Those kinds of compromises are exactly what politicians are elected and paid to do and ultimately they must respond to the public--at least that is what we hope.
The timber industry and ORVs argue their perspective, and wildlands supporters argue their reasons--and the politicians make the ultimate decisions--and hopefully they reflect the public's desires.
But again the public needs to know what we are giving up before we can weigh whether the compromises are worthwhile.
In the example of the Great Burn that you cite, what we give up in terms of specific roadless lands to other uses may in fact be worth it in the long run.
You are making arguments in favor of protecting a core area--and the reason you are making such an argument is based upon good biological information that suggests having corridors of roadless lands are important for the long term protection of species. This was information that didn't exist 20-30 years ago but we now understand is important for the long term integrity of some wildlife populations.
Much of what I talk about in this essay about logging impacts, and/or the value of dead wood is material that was not known years ago. I remember when I started in forestry school years ago going on field trips in the Bitterroot Mountains to look at logging operations. The major objection to clearcuts was the effect on scenery. There was some sense that the roads "might" be a problem, but not that much documentation at that time. There were not many other problems associated with logging--or so most people thought. In fact, I can recall the forest service people telling my classes how clearcutting was good for the forest because it got rid of the "slow growing" old trees (which we now call old growth) and created more "productive" young forests. So they blithely cut the slopes of the Bitterroot Mountains without much regret because most people, including most of the people in the Forest Service believed that they were actually "improving" the forest by clearcutting.
Now years later, we understand that clearcutting had many other impacts beyond just affects on scenery and counting board feet as the only indicator of forest productivity is misguided.
So all I am doing is trying to make people aware that there are trade offs in any decision. Whether the trade offs are acceptable can't be determined without information. I'm putting out information that most people do not even know exists except for the scientists who happen to study say forest bees and pollinators, ants or lichens.
George, Thanks for your continued efforts to educate the public about the importance of dead trees. I like how in your last comment you talk about "trade offs in any decision," because the way some people talk about logging, thinning or biomass removal you'd be lead to believe there are no negative consequences with any of these actions, which is of course nonsense.
One example of this is the push for large-scale, centralized biomass energy production from national forests. While I don't necessarily have an issue with small-scale, micro biomass energy production, the logging industry and their supporters are currently working just about every angle to see our public forests opened up for large-scale mega mega-watt production, which would have severe negative impacts. For example, a recently analysis found that a proposed 30 megawatt biomass plant in the dry forests New Mexico would result in the complete elimination of all of forest biomass in the plants reach within 10 years. How's that for "green" energy?
My favorite WTF example concerning biomass logging on national forests is the oft-repeated claim from biomass energy supporters and investors that "the result would be a park-like forest floor, compared to the Black Forest of Germany" (source: http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/articles/2009/03/20/whitefishpilot/news/news_8762598013_01.txt).
Hmmm...So now we want to turn the public forests in Montana and elsewhere throughout the western US into the Black Forest of Germany? So much for wildlife, biodiversity and healthy soils. So much for any public hunting season.
George,I hear and respect your position,for sure and agree with a lot of it in principal!! I suppose I just keep trying to fight my own personal pessimism about human nature and the sad fact that the average american cares much more about material wealth than ecosystem integrity-with an optomistic and perhaps overly simplistic vision of that good old ,utopian, We can have it all-thus far myth of MUSY.You being a forestry grad of course understand the Multiple-Use-Sustained Yield theory -but weve seen it not work when 1 use dominates,of course it isnt sustainable.We saw that with the record board ft.of the 80s!! But I have also become totally perplexed and conflicted as on a personal level its become painfully obvious that you really can't "eat the scenery" and life really does suck when you have to do garbage you despise just to survive!!Displaced loggers cannot replace the life theyve lost by acquiring some stupid service sector economy job -kissing tourists asses!!Yet even though I realize its JOBS that are of paramount importance,I also know the heydey of such jobs is forever over. So I suppose that's why We really need to focus on creating high paying eco-restoration jobs,that dont run dry with the funding necessary to keep them perpetual.Really thats the most important thing to most people JOBS,JOBS,JOBS- and Weve got to convince people we can still provide that even if were preserving yet more land,which to the people that dont understand the science of ecosystems is already way too much! Gotta Run-Good to Chat with you!!!!!!
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 3-31-09So George, one of your kids been asking you to buy them a car? Have they? I think maybe you're a lawyer masquerading as a scientist. Lawyers are taught to argue their case regardless of the evidence and you site a nice list of evidence for letting trees rot were they lay. You'll have to pardon my skepticism but my first question then is what percentage of dead wood is critical to the various types of forest ecosystems? Can humans harvest any wood at all without devastating the ecosystem? 10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? And then there are those damn ants which you imply depend of rotting wood for their survival. Maybe carpenter ants, but all the other ants? I spent enough time living and working in the woods that I know ants are on me every time I try to lay down and take a nap or eat lunch whether there's any dead wood around or not. And even here in suburbia, its the same story very little rotting wood and a hell of a lot of ants climbing live trees attracted by the sap. And then there's the forest ecosystem itself. It not that ancient and its not that fragile. Remember, where there are now forests in North America only about 18 thousand years ago there were glaciers and semi-arid grasslands at the end of the last ice age which wasn't caused by the amount of co2 in the atmosphere by the way. I could go on but this is getting tedious and I need to take a nap where no ants will bother me.
Comment By Geo., 3-31-09Mickey:
No car yet. But probably coming in a few years.
To answer your other question, I turn it around. Do you know how much dead wood is needed to maintain ecosystem productivity? Those proposing to remove significant amounts of biomass should be the ones that have to answer that question. I suspect there is some level of removal that could be done without significant impact--but we won't even be able to answer such a question--if no one is asking it. Glad you asked. Hope someone can answer it someday.
To give your ants question a response. Not all ants live in logs as you noticed (good observation). Many ants live in the decaying wood that is in the soil. The fragments that remain and depend indirectly on the nutrients that that dead wood provides to the soil. And/or they feed upon the numerous other invertebrates that live on decomposing wood in the soil, meanwhile the ants tunnels help to aerate the soil, increase water infiltration, etc. so their presence may be more important than you or I suspect.
18,000 years or even 10,000 years isn't that long in geological time, but what we have in terms of soil, etc. is the result of at least that time period of accumulation. And we may (I use the word may not are) be rapidly accelerate that loss.
Keep in mind that most of our forests have only been logged one or two times at most. The timber industry started in the East, moved to the mid West and then the Pacific Coast, and finally came to the Rockies. Why because at every step of the way they cut in non-sustainable fashion. We are only starting to see woodlands in some parts of the US cut for the third, fourth, and fifth time, and we are finding problems we didn't anticipate--losses in productivity, etc. not to mention, increasing numbers of endangered species (and only of the larger ones we know about--who knows what has happened to smaller species like inverts).
Just to take it to another topic you might appreciate, we know that the glaciers deposited soil feet thick in the mid west. Yet our farming practices have eroded away a good percentage of that accumulated soil in the past hundred years.
We may have to wait a long time before the next glaciation brings us more of the top soil from Canada, and I believe a prudent person would be concerned about the top soil and nutrient loss. A similar prudent approach to forestry is needed as well, and largely absent from most discussions.
Mickey, I know you are a prudent man, so I suspect you will now agree with my cautionary note and impeccable logic. Smile.
George, its your responsibility to answer the question since you're the one claiming to know enough to know that removing tree bodies is degrading the ecosystem. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that decaying biomass on the forest floor is not all or even mostly tree bodies. Do you even have any idea what percentage of the annual rotting biomass that becomes compost or duff on the forest floor is rotting tree bodies? I'll make it simple for even an environmental fundamentalist to understand. In your home composter, You might throw in leaves, grass, twigs, rotting food, dead mice, poop etc. Then you add some 4 by 4s at least one foot in length. When your compost is ready, will the 4 by 4's still be there?
Comment By Geo, 3-31-09Mickey
Here's where we disagree. I think it's up to those proposing to alter natural systems to answer such questions.
That's the problem in our society. We assume that industries are free to take, mine, pollute--whatever until someone can show that there activities are detrimental. I think we need to reverse the burden of proof and put it upon those who will profit from resource exploitation to prove that they are not harming things--especially when we have some evidence there may be problems.
As for other biomass--you're correct--there are many other things that add to the biomass on the forest floor and in the soil. Glad you thought about that.
Environmental Impact statements are required in some cases appropriately in order to get permission to fart. However you've gone a step farther with most of your blogs. You seem to be claiming that all forest ecosystems should be untouched by the hand of man as if they were all wilderness areas and human interference will result in degradation and eventually disaster. The burden of proof for this belief rests on you. Ideally, I suppose, an environmental impact statement should be filed by individuals planning to have children along with a statement certifying that one has enough resources to support them. There are over 6 billion human beings eating, farting and pooping on planet earth you realize.
Comment By Chad Hanson, Ph.D., 4-01-09As a scientist studying forest and fire ecology, it is encouraging to read an article like this, which helps to bridge the gap between the science and the public's understanding of forests. The evidence strongly indicates that dead trees (snags) and large downed logs are some of the most ecologically-important habitat features in our forests, and there is a severe deficit of these in most forested regions--especially large snags. This deficit creates a significant threat to many wildlife species that depend upon snags and downed logs for foraging and nesting/denning habitat. It is important to understand that an ecologically healthy forest is one that has an abundance of large snags and downed logs, and an active fire regime, including patches of high-severity fire (which support peak levels of native biodiversity in wildlife species and higher plants). Thanks for the excellent article.
Chad Hanson, Ph.D.
Hey,
What is the best dedicated server web hosting company?
I'm need to set up a website for a supervisor.
Should I trust this site?
http://www.top-10-best-web-hosting.com
Thank you,
-Leticia