You should see the forests in my area in New England, USA. They are overgrown thickets, never managed. They are dark and crowded with little sunlight. They are full of dead trees. These forests need to be managed. The main opponents of management are environmentalists who want no management and no logging, i.e., no humans in the forests... except hikers and backpackers.
I myself like selective cutting the most, since it keeps the ecosystem intact. For the light issue, younger trees can also be thinned so more light hits the floor and alows for other tree species. kind of like pre commercial thinning or commercial thinning, whichever suits best
Depends on the ecosystem - it maintains stable forests of relwtively shade-tolerant species, but it will eliminate ecosystems based on large scale disturbances (e.g. fire, windthrow) compised of light-demanding species
@@thecurrentmoment i dont think it it necessarily excludes each other. windthrows can and will still happen, especially in stronger storms. Also if you need more light on the ground you can balance how many old trees you cut to open the canopy or how many young trees you thin out to upen up the undergrowth.
@@minnihd6470 I suppose that's true, if there are still natural disturbances that that happen to reset the succession. I guess I am thinking in a lot of places forests are fragmented so to keep them around you need to mimic those large disturbances, I.e. by clearfelling, but in a smaller patch size if you want to keep them around. But in a big continuous forest you're right, you can let it do its own natural thing and just take some trees out of it (by selection felling)
Branches and tree tops to bioenergy?! Forget that, make biochar instead! Then use that to regenerate degraded agricultural soils, making farming more profitable
Thanks for sharing this video, it would be good to compare some of the benefits and drawbacks of each including rough economics. I believe future lower impact harvesting technologies will help with the economics of selective logging or shelter systems.
You should see the forests in my area in New England, USA. They are overgrown thickets, never managed. They are dark and crowded with little sunlight. They are full of dead trees. These forests need to be managed. The main opponents of management are environmentalists who want no management and no logging, i.e., no humans in the forests... except hikers and backpackers.
I myself like selective cutting the most, since it keeps the ecosystem intact. For the light issue, younger trees can also be thinned so more light hits the floor and alows for other tree species. kind of like pre commercial thinning or commercial thinning, whichever suits best
Depends on the ecosystem - it maintains stable forests of relwtively shade-tolerant species, but it will eliminate ecosystems based on large scale disturbances (e.g. fire, windthrow) compised of light-demanding species
@@thecurrentmoment i dont think it it necessarily excludes each other. windthrows can and will still happen, especially in stronger storms. Also if you need more light on the ground you can balance how many old trees you cut to open the canopy or how many young trees you thin out to upen up the undergrowth.
@@minnihd6470 I suppose that's true, if there are still natural disturbances that that happen to reset the succession.
I guess I am thinking in a lot of places forests are fragmented so to keep them around you need to mimic those large disturbances, I.e. by clearfelling, but in a smaller patch size if you want to keep them around.
But in a big continuous forest you're right, you can let it do its own natural thing and just take some trees out of it (by selection felling)
@@thecurrentmoment of cause if your ecosystem depends on forest fires and they are put out that would be bad in the long run
Hi
Branches and tree tops to bioenergy?! Forget that, make biochar instead! Then use that to regenerate degraded agricultural soils, making farming more profitable
bullshit
Thanks for sharing this video, it would be good to compare some of the benefits and drawbacks of each including rough economics. I believe future lower impact harvesting technologies will help with the economics of selective logging or shelter systems.