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).