Talk:Clearcutting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's face it. The term 'clearcut' or 'clearcutting' whether 1 or 2 words is far more common usage than 'clearfelling', so it should probably be the main page. -The Gomm 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motivations?

The clearcutting page doesn't explain the motivations of the timber industry. Why is clearcutting desirable? Yes, it mentions that the practice encourages regeneration, but I doubt that is the motivation. Is it more efficient to clearcut versus other harvesting methods? More economical? Perhaps that is so obvious it is a given, but that is one of the questions that prompted me to look for this page. 68.116.110.47 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The motivation for clearcutting is based an ecological and economical reasoning. You are right in that it is by far more efficient from an economic stand point to use clearcutting. Ecologically, this is dependent on forest type however. The use of the clearcutting silvicultural system most closely emulates natural disturbance. Historically in the Boreal forest, (since the last Ice age, 10,000 years approx.)every year 1% of the land burnt, or a.k.a. a rotation age of 100 years. The size of the burnt area as per historical data is descrbed as 95% of fires burn 5% of the land and 5% of fires burn 95% of the land. This means lots of little fires (1 -100ha)and few large fires (+100ha) That being said the natural evolution of tree species in the Boreal such as Jack Pine Pinus banksiana Black spruce Picea mariana and Trembling Aspen Populous tremuloides has promoted these species to be specifically adapted to large disturbance areas. For example, Jack pine, has evolved to have serotinous cones, Black spruce has semi-serotinous cones and Trembling Aspen coppice regeneration. These traits all have in common the requirment of heat to naturally regenerate. The heat comes from a)the fire that has burnt the stand and b)most commonly, the soil temperature after being exposed to direct sunlight. While harvesting cannot completely mimic natural disturbance, it is at this point in time the closest representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grebber (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add however to my previous explaination that the clear cut system is not the most ecologically viable system for all forest types. In my previous explaination, I talked soley about circum-Boreal silvics. I should add that the clear cut system is not applicable to all forest types. For example, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest is a gap phase regeneration forest. In this type of forest, the most ecologically sound practice is selection logging. (the act of selecting individuals from a stand for harvest.) This is the only silviculture that can be practiced in this forest both legally and ecologically. In returning to Boreal silvics, this system doesn't meet ecological needs. In so much as the selection system in Boreal species; reduces genetic variability, negates natural regeneration in most cases, introduces pathogens, etc. The important thing to note is that harvesting systems mimic dominant disturbance patterns that have been the catalyst for evolution in that specific area.Grebber 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

yea...what the other dude is sayin is rite~!

[edit] Tone

I think the public criticism section is blatantly biased, especially the uncited "Spin from unspecified logging company part". It should be rewritten by someone more knowledgeable.~~