Jon questioned whether the goals of the Round Star project were “ecological” or “silvicultural” and T responded (this is part of the response) that
All silviculture is applied ecology.
While the FHF’s public affairs shop didn’t clearly draw the line to their Forest Plan, that is definitely in the minds of their Silviculturists. Many of the considerations mentioned above (eg root disease, fire resilience, beetle resistance) are very likely laid out in the FHF’s Forest Plan.On the other hand, I work under a forest plan that is 40 years old, and very divorced from ecology. The goals it lays out are largely driven by timber production, and the ecological considerations I include in management decisions are not laid out in the Plan at all.
This discussion reminds me of when I worked in R&D (I know that some of you may find this scary, but for some time I was both the Silviculture and Genetics Program Manager, because we couldn’t get a “real” silviculture researcher to move to DC). Anyway, part of that was helping organize the National Silviculture Workshop. A local group handled all the arrangements and field trips, and it was a terrific experience to be there and learn from the researchers, the working silviculturists, and their interactions. At the time I had two ideas, which turned out to be universally unpopular..
- The first was to change our name from silviculturist to “applied ecologist”. I thought “hey, if ecologists are cool, and we are ecologists, why not ride in the slipstream of this popular trend?”
How does Wikipedia define ecology?
Ecology is the scientific study of how living organisms interact with each other and with their physical environment
Not to get all super-picky about language, but what biological science doesn’t involve “interacting with their environment” to some degree? Even cells on a petri dish do it. So what we used to call forest biologists are all ecologists in that sense. Wildlife biologists can be renamed wildlife ecologists and no one will really know the difference. We even had a class in “genecology” in my master’s program, so conceptually I might have been a genecologist. Whatever.
Here’s Google AI’s take on the Dictionary of Forestry definition..
- Art and Science: It blends biological and ecological sciences with practical, hands-on management skills. [1]
- Control of Attributes: It gives managers the tools to actively shape five critical forest elements: how a forest starts (establishment), how it develops (growth), what species live there (composition), how it resists diseases (health), and its overall economic or ecological worth (quality). [1, 2]
- Diverse Needs and Values: It acknowledges that modern forestry is not just about logging for timber. It also prioritizes wildlife habitats, carbon storage, clean water, and recreation. [1, 2]
- Sustainability: It requires managing resources responsibly so that the forest continues to thrive for future generations. [1, 2]
Thanks to the wonders of Google AI, I found this handy set of definitions compiled by Dr. Kristen Waring at NAU.
As Jerry Franklin once said of FS geneticists (at a biodiversity workshop?), (he was defending us against other FS employees who associated us with commercial timber production), we don’t set the goals, the landowner does. We could be “conservation” geneticists or “exploitation” geneticists (as I was once called by an FS researcher)- the tools are the same, but the goals different.
2. My other highly unpopular idea was to take our silvicultural definitions, with their hints of a timber-y past, and develop a new set of definitions that could be more easily explained to the public- just for federal forests. Then there is how things are reported in FACTS (and elsewhere?), which may have different definitions than the Harvest Report we discussed last week (or not?).
Remember Anonymous found out about those definitions:
There is a technical breakdown of the classification of activities on the last page of the report.
“Removal cut” is the final stage of seed tree or shelterwood harvest.
“Improvement Cut” is an intermediate treatment made in a stand, pole-sized or larger, primarily to improve composition and quality by removing less desirable trees of any species.
“Special cut” is harvest without restocking. Like a power line right-of-way.
Let’s go back to a discussion between Anonymous and T last week. Anonymous said:
Curious how a shelterwood with residuals is categorized on the Colville? Normally, a shelterwood harvest is considered even-aged management, but the Colville never does the second entry; therefore, the shelterwood is never removed. NTM, eastside screens includes a 21-inch dbh limit, so that also affects the result of a shelterwood. Given these caveats, is that really an even-aged harvest and how does the forest track this harvest method in FACTS? Seems more like a thinning from below, given the overstory retention and canopy cover target, and the result is a two-aged stand.
T replied:
I think that’s a good point. My understanding is there’s a specific FACTS Activity Code for Two-Aged Shelterwood With Reserves, where it is acknowledged that the shelter trees are to be retained with no intention of removal. Because the primary intent of the treatment is to regenerate the stand and establish a new cohort, it is a regeneration harvest not an intermediate treatment (ie thinning). Even if there are a lot of residual trees, it all comes down to whether the intent is to establish a new cohort or manage the existing cohort.
The Forest Service lumps single-age and two-age treatments into “even-age” systems, and anything with three or more age classes as “uneven-age” systems. This has implications for 40-acre openings: a two-age regeneration harvest over 40 acres requires public notice and approval, but an uneven-age regen harvest over 40 does not.
There is the treatment, there is what is left (some of us remember the old Ecosystem Management mantra, “more concerned with what we leave than what we take”), what the long-term intention is (reduce fuels, protect trees from …, increase species diversity). Site-specific attributes also enter the picture .. depending on the soil and wind patterns, will residuals blow down?
So folks can propose different treatments toward the same long-term goals, or the same treatment with different long-term goals. But you can’t tell the goals by driving by. You have to read the EA or talk to a silviculturist. Who knows much more about the site and what works towards the stated goals, and incorporates information from other experts (wildlife, soils, fuels etc.). So a federal silviculturist is both an expert and a convenor of other local experts, plus does projects that move toward the DCs in the forest plan (if it is a recent one) or does things that otherwise make sense (if not).
If a silviculturist writes a prescription for a management action that removes native undesirable species in order to maximize growth of commercial species for future human use is that still considered applied ecology?
Yes, the goals are set by the landowner and the application of ecological or other knowledge is toward those goals. It is a bit confusing when people say that there are “ecological” goals as if everyone knew what that meant or agreed on what they are.
Perhaps it’s more obvious with private landowners. If a landowner wants to reduce fuels, grow species preferred by certain wildlife or insects, grow big old trees, or whatever, it’s the landowners’ call.
I don’t know if it was intentional but some ecological scientists think that they can set their own goals and call it “science”- it’s still values, just their values.
Some might call it weeding the tree farm. It would kind of be like having the county weed inspector provide guidance for eradicating weeds on a farm. The primary purpose is to maximize growth for a commercial crop. It’s done on private land. It’s done on national forests.
This is not a criticism or slighting the knowledge of silviculturists. I like food and wood and it all comes from somewhere. I’m just not sure it should be called using “ecological principles” when the plan is to maximize growth for human use. That is more like farming.
I take your point, but the goal isn’t always to grow a commercial crop. Many or most Forest Service projects have the goal of ecological restoration as their primary goal. And after two centuries of fire exclusion and decades of exploitative timber practices, sometimes less desirable species are overrepresented compared to a natural or healthy forest. Sure, removing grand fir to promote ponderosa pine is kinda like weeding a farm field. But it is seeking to undo some of the damage that humans have done in the recent past.
I don’t know if John Cissel reads these comments, but I recall on the Ochoco when Forplan “told” us to cut the ponderosa pine and leave the white/grand fir, because the model says they grow faster. Of course, the silvicultural folks pointed out that that approach was a future disease and insect fest… remember spruce budworm (see this report on the effects of the 1980’s spruce budworm outbreak on the Malheur.https://osu-wams-blogs-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs.dir/3942/files/2020/10/1994-Powell-Malheur-SpruceBudWorm_stelprdb5358589.pdf
Not to sound anti-fir, but they can be ladder fuels for fire, plus suck up moisture and stress pines. Which is not to say I’m anti-true fir, just that if we want biodiversity in terms of species diversity, we need to pay attention to the needs of intolerant species, or they will be toast (in some cases, literally).
Forplan was driven by an economic objective (given whatever constraints that could be imposed on that), and trees growing faster meant more money.
I agree, the job of a silviculturists is often to do more than grow commercial species. I’m questioning defining their work as using “ecological principles” in those situations where the goal is to grow trees, often monocultures, for commercial purposes. When I worked on the Tongass NF in the mid-80s, the silviculture shop primarily oversaw planting pure stands of Sitka spruce seedlings, thinning saplings in areas that were clearcut (emphasizing leaving spruce over hemlock and cedar) and collecting forest data. While on the Rio Grande NF, much of the emphasis was growing Engelmann spruce or sometimes clearcutting aspen to set back succession in areas that used to have a fire return interval of 300 years or more. This has changed some recently. I know I am being a little harsh here and over simplifying, but I think it is good to point out a lot of prescriptions written for forest management areas designated in forest plans are more like tree farming than managing an are with ecological principles. And, in my opinion, that is okay. That is just a piece of the larger vision outlined in a forest plan.
When I started on the Fremont, we were taking conifers out of wildlife acres for aspen to grow, and taking aspen out of timber acres for conifers to grown. Were either of these “ecological principles”? What is an “ecological principle” exactly?
I think that that is the key miscommunication issue; that there are various ecological science disciplines from nutrient cycling to landscape ecology to wildlife ecology… and then there are “ecological” worldviews or goals, which are not always clear, and can be contested when you get down to a specific case.
I know some brilliant silvs with the FS. However, I find many silvilculturalists think more like engineers than true ecologists. They often exhibit extreme confidence about their ability to control the life and death of all the trees in a district or forest through mechanical and chemical means. Ecologists are often more humble and desire natural processes as the goal of active management.
A. we all know what a district or forest (or private) silviculturist does. In my own lived experience, people who work with real objects outside tend to be more humble than others. Of course they know that they can’t control things, they learned that from experience.
What is a “true ecologist” in your opinion? Is it a philosophy or a scientific background? If so, as I said, we are all “ecologists” who work in the biological end of forest science. Are there such ecologists hired by the FS? If so, what are their tasks.. what are their disciplinary research tools and what do they produce?
Reminds me of my favorite definition of a silviculturist: An ecologist with a chainsaw
I think the difference you’re getting at is about perspective and ownership. To me, Ecologists are more passive observers of these ecosystems. Silvs view humans as inexorably intertwined with forests, for better and for worse, and we take a bit more active role on the landscape. The same science applies, and the same love of these ecosystems drives people in both of fields. Neither is necessarily better, both perspectives have their value.
I also think of my work collaborating with tribes. Humans have always been part of fire-adapted ecosystems, and indigenous people were the first silviculturists—using fire to manage range, berry fields, camas, etc. Granted, the pendulum swung way too far as any semblance of a land ethic was with colonization, but I’m an optimist that we’re coming back to a better place. And in any case, my point is that humanity’s role is more enmeshed in the land that we often think.
T. again, I think the term “ecologist” can be confusing. Is it a job or a philosophy or a science? Landscape ecologists or wildlife ecologists or fire ecologists or the folks who study nutrient flows (systems ecologists). What is “ecological thinking”? From New Perspectives, it was something like “considering the whole” but as we all know there are many different ways to do that!
As I recall from my time as a silviculturist; back then, our goals and objectives were driven by volume numbers, with the meshing (or mushing) of where and how much the ID Team recommended. As for ecology, that’s the basic knowledge of how our target species responded to environmental and treatment stressors. As the Agency (and myself) aged, the newer Forest Plans laid out the goals and objectives for desired future conditions. The ID Teams massaged those ideals to treated acres. As a long time SO Director of Timber told me “treat the acres, the volumes would be there” and he was correct! Of course that occurred in the South, and even now we could not cut all the growth those Forests are producing.
The other thing that strikes me is, whenever there is real, or imagined pushback on a timber/silviculture discipline, the very first thing to do is redefine the concepts to confuse everyone! It’s the forest service way….
My point (I think) was that the Forest’s response was too narrowly focused on a subset of the goals that had been established in the forest plan (implying that silviculture is a subset of ecology).
I don’t get what you are saying…? Perhaps it’s a language difference.. I can easily make the transition from “what DCs are likely to be” to “the goals of the project.” Would you be equally concerned if fish bios had a “wood in streams” project and talked about it in terms of which fish species prefer it, rather than going back to what the plan says about fish?
I think I would. That old planning regulations had language that said all projects must be “based on the forest plan.” I’m sure someone rejected my suggestion to keep it in the 2012 Rule, but it should still be true, and the project documentation should explain that (ideally in the purpose and need). The plan must have said these fish are important and that we need to make things better for them (and then this project is how). But maybe I’m getting too academic.
Here’s the P&N for Roundstar links to the forest plan are everywhere.. https://usfs-public.app.box.com/s/cvnaib2t9mgvw6n974e0itnqeaedinml/file/2432583645026
I specifically asked the Forest for a rationale for the prescription of clearcutting, not how the project relates to the forest plan (which was easy to see in the EA).