This webinar was interesting, also the questions and responses. Here’s the link to the recording of the webinar.
One of the things that stood out for me was how hard it was for the researchers to get information- still – in this day and age. The other thing that stood out is how much of understanding complex issues depends on modeling rather than observation. That’s what makes it post-normal science, and why trust of scientists, and scientists maintaining trust, is so important.
For me it was just fun to hear about people studying something we’re all interested in and having a seminar for folks from all over the country. And quite a break from the legal issues of the day.
You might also want to check out the Lessons Learned Center here, or firescience.gov, for related information.
“understanding complex issues depends on modeling”
Indeed.
Another example: Until recently nearly everyone understood that thinning dense forests was beneficial to recruitment of large wood to streams, because, or so the logic went, large wood is beneficial to streams and thinning grows big trees faster, therefore, thinning will help recruit large wood.
But modelling turned up a different result. The unthinned stands don’t stop growing and they have many more stems available for recruitment, and mortality processes are more active, so unthinned stands actually recruit not only more total wood volume but also more large pieces of wood than thinned stands. The agencies are slowing and reluctantly coming to accept this result, but we still read many NEPA documents which proclaim falsely that thinning is beneficial to large wood.
Thanks for that link Dave…I’ve followed your stuff on FP-FP and here for a while, but missed this info…Definitely caused some reflection.
TreeC123 what paper are you referring to that shows that unthinned stands create larger wood at a higher rate than thinned stands? The whole reason people thin stands is to promote growth in the residual trees since tree growth is limited by the 3/2 power law. Sure there will be less mortality in the residual trees than if the trees were able to go through natural stand dynamics but they are at an increased risk of burning with stand replacing conditions eliminating recruitment of new wood for decades after the initial pulse.
Kevin, You’re thinking like a forester instead of an ecologist. Thinning increases growth of individual trees, but it does not increase growth of the stand. In a thinned stand, the increased growth is added only to the few stems that are left in the forest, while in an unthinned stand, a slightly smaller amount of growth is added to a much larger number of stems, resulting in greater overall growth at the stand level. See Beechie, T., G. Pess, P. Kennard, R. Bilby, and S. Bolton. 2000. Modeling Recovery Rates and Pathways for Woody Debris Recruitment in Northwestern Washington Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 20:436–452. ftp://frap.cdf.ca.gov/pub/incoming/TAC/ISOR%20references%201-139%20%20KIRSTEN/Beechie%20et%20al.%202000.pdf
The stand simulation models prepared as part of NEPA project planning consistently show that unthinned stands recruit more dead wood, both large and small, and in both the near term and the long term. Dead wood recruitment, instead of being a beneficial result of thinning as assumed by most managers, is actually an adverse effect of thinning that should be mitigated by leaving generous unthinned skips within treated stands, especially along streams.