What is a truly "healthy" forest?

[Montanaforester]

Forest health is 2 rings/inch

[Ron Wenrich]

I've seen some hardwood guys talking that they thought 1/4" dbh growth/year was pretty good.   

Are you getting that kind of growth in Montana?

[Cedarman]

I can be healthy today and come down with the flu tomorrow.  An ash can be healthy today and dead 2 years from now from EAB.
A forest can be healthy today,(lack of diseases and weather problems etc), and headed for big changes tomorrow.

The question seems to be, Can we make the forest what we want it to be? Can we control the environmental and human things that will change the forest?

Nature doesnt' give a squat about trees or animals.  Each animal and plant will do its best to survive with the conditions at hand.  Some make it most don't.

Healthy is a human determination, not natures.

Good and bad are human inventions.  Nature doesn't know the meaning.

[jim king]

Cedarman:  That is one of the finest answers I have seen.

Just a note from the South, here we get about an inch in dia per year of growth and some species over 2 inches.

[Jeff]

Cedarman:  That is one of the finest answers I have seen.

I really like that one as well.

[Gary_C]

Nature doesnt' give a squat about trees or animals.  Each animal and plant will do its best to survive with the conditions at hand.  Some make it most don't.

Ya, I like that answer too. It is also the reason why the "Endangered Species Act" should be repealed. It's nothing more than humans trying to control nature, usually at the expense of other humans.   

[SwampDonkey]

I have heard 4 inches in 10 years. But we don't get that in hardwood (forest grown) unless intensively managed. And it's not managed for much more than pulp and firewood up here, if there is veneer or logs it's a little bonus.  You've seen that forest grown ash with 24-28 rings to the inch?  And ash grows faster than hard maple. Also it depends on the point in time or rather, development stage and crown class/position of the tree. You will notice quite a difference in growth over time when a tree reaches 8" dbh onward if it's a dominant tree. That ash up there was a dominant tree. Now you could cut an orchard grown black cherry and find it grows about 2 cm a year. I cut one a few years ago that was 54 cm on the stump and 1 cm/ring, so 2 cm a year. Based on diameter increment, fir grows a lot faster than hardwood and a bit faster than spruce, W. pine even quicker in good conditions. Hardwood grows faster in height.


I like Cedarman's explanation as well. 

[Montanaforester]

In Montana, only in the best conditions can we get 2 rings/inch, but it can be done.  In my opinion, a faster growing stand has more insect and disease resistance, better cone crops, etc, plus it grows more wood for the mill.

The agencies around here are really into "Restoration Forestry" which is just as hard to define as "forest health."  We call restoration forestry "Once upon a time forestery."  That was then, this is now.  We can mimic the past, but never duplicate it.  Especially in fire dominated ecosystems.  It doesn't mean we need to cut every big tree for the mill, or convert every stand to a plantation, but there is just no way we can replcate the past.

[mdvaden]

The agencies around here are really into "Restoration Forestry" which is just as hard to define as "forest health."  We call restoration forestry "Once upon a time forestery."  That was then, this is now.  We can mimic the past, but never duplicate it.  Especially in fire dominated ecosystems.  It doesn't mean we need to cut every big tree for the mill, or convert every stand to a plantation, but there is just no way we can replcate the past.

Which is exactly why I headed one of my pages with "forests are not renewable" 

Replaced, maybe.

[Phorester]

This also begs the question, what is a virgin forest?  Some landowners I work with tell me they want their forest to be "just like a virgin forest".  So what in hell is a virgin forest?  Personally, I'd say that in my area it would be the first forest that evolved after the glaciers scraped everything down to bedrock, then began heading North about 16,000 years ago.  (sorta like the yankees in 1865, but slower.    ) That first forest after the ice age was jack pine and fir, which you wouldn't get established here now even if you planted one since the climate is so different now.

I think they really mean they want a forest like what was there before European man came on the scene, as if this completely destroyed the forest forever more.   , so they think the "true" ,"natural' forest is what existed before "man" contaminated it.  Oddly enough, such a forest would look a lot like what's here now, except it would have more oak and also American chestnut, and less yellow poplar and red maple.

[Ron Wenrich]

I'm thinking that most people think of a virgin forest as one that fringes on the climax forest, and has large trees.  Climax forests in this area had a lot more white oak and hemlock versus the other species.  But, there were still vast forests of white pine, which is more indicative of the introduction of fire or disease to the stand.

[jim king]

This thing about "Virgin Forests" drives me crazy also.  Here in the Amazon about 1 in every 50 trees falls over every year due to heavy rain, disease or something.  Does that mean in 10 years when a good percentage have fallen over it is no longer a virgin forest ?

Is it possible the words "Virgin Forest" are simply being confused and abused and made acceptable by the fanatic ecologists like as if loggers are killing little old ladies?  As we think we have a natural rotation of about 50 years in the Amazon does that mean we have NO "Virgen Forest"  ?

I am confused also.  Now you throw the carbon credit thing at me and I want to disconnect my internet.

[Ron Scott]

From The Dictionary of Forestry.

Virgin Forest an original forest, usually containing large trees, that has not been significantly disturbed or influenced by human activity--synonym primary forest-- see old-growth forest

[Phorester]

I can go along with that definition of a virgin forest, which is what I was getting at in my earlier post. But as Ron says, I'll bet the average person doesn't realize just how far back in history they'd have to go to get to a virgin forest condition.  Man has been in my geographical area for around 14,000 years and has had a great influnce in the forest ever since, starting with the wholesale use of fire to burn vast acreages every year.

[Phorester]

JIM, as the last couple of posts suggests, I think the concept of a virgin forest refers to a lack of influence by man, not to the lifespan of individual trees. 

As has been stated, it's a human concept.  Some forest ecologists and historians say it started with the writings of Thoreau (On Walden Pond) and others who first attempted to explain and romantize the concept.

[ID4ster]

A healthy forest is one that functions properly. By that I mean that the biological agents that make up a forest from the soil and soil organisms to the leaf litter and downed wood to the understory vegetation to the overstory vegetation (i.e. timber) to the tree crowns and the wildlife, insects and pathological organisms that inhabit the entire forest at that particular stage of succession are functioning as they should. Insect and disease attacks are at endemic levels and wildlife and vegetation supluses are removed either naturally and/or in a planned manner (timber harvesting, hunting, prescribed fire). A forest can and should be healthy at any stage of its succession from establishment through the seral stages to the climax forest. It is up to the landowner to decide which stage or stages of forest succession that they want on their property and then utilizing the forester's knowledge and skill to achieve that goal.

A healthy forest is pretty plastic. Meaning that you have a lot of options and biological leeway to achieve that landowners goals. As I often tell landowners and forest owners that I work and interact with, A healthy forest will let you have 95% of everything that you want. Wildlife, timber production, aesthetics, clean water, recreation and soil fertility. Can you have 100% of everything? No. Mother nature doesn't provide that and neither can you. Can you have 100% of some attributes? Yes but you'll have to accept less than 95% (sometimes significantly less) on some of your other attributes. Can you have a healthy forest under those conditions? Maybe. 

To answer your questions; Is a healthy forest based on timber production only? No you can have an empahsis on wildlfe and still have a healthy forest that produces a lesser amount of sawtimber. Or it can produce greater amounts of clean water (watershed for a munincipality) with lesser amounts of timber or old growth wildlife. As long as you are in the parameters defined by the biology of the area you can still have a healthy forest. Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum or near max timber be healthy? Yes it can but you might have less of some other attributes but that is the landowners decision. Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material? Absolutely though the type of wildlife will be determined by the successional stage and how much structure and habitat (snags, large downed wood) that is in the forest. All these questions deal with the science and art of silviculture along with the ability to educate and work with the forest landowners that you come in contact with. As you gain experience and knowledge of the area that you work in a lot of these decisions will be easier to make and to communicate to the landowner. But then that is part of the challenge and fun of being a professional forester. Not everyone can do that.

A couple of final points. Generally a mixed forest is healthier than a monocultured one simply from the aspect of disease or insect resistance. Sometimes a monoculture is unaviodable ( Ponderosa pine types here in the Pacific northwest come to mind, I'm sure that there are others) and you'll have to deal with them when you encounter them. That's just the way it goes since ma nature calls the shots. Both mixed and monoculture forests can be very healthy and productive. Its just that one may require more monitoring that the other. As Phorester and others have pointed out virgin forest is an unattainable goal. Human kind has been utilizing the forests since they moved into the areas shortly after the ice sheets retreated. Anyone that fails to believe that simply needs to look at the tools found on the Ice man over in Italy. Wood and copper both  were extracted from the forest and the earth. So any type of forest that is untouched by man would also require no humans at all to be present. Pre european forests here in north america were heavily influenced by the indigenous peoples that were here from coast to coast and they were not the deep dark old growth primeval forests that most people imagine as a virgin or ancient forest. The historical record clearly shows that a seral stage savannah type forest was more productive in terms of food production which was far more important to someone trying to get something to eat than a stand of large old trees.

So yes a forest can be healthy in a lot of different ways and produce a lot of products. Its up to you and the landowner on what that will be and how you want to achieve it.

[ibseeker]

BrandonTN, if you're interested in sharing your insights and knowledge with a landowner in need of help, I'll be in Maryville from March 15th through April 4th. It would be a great help for me to have someone walk my forest with me and offer suggestions or observations. I'd also like to talk with your friend, the Restoration Ecologist. I'm looking for all the input that I can get. If that doesn't work out then that's fine, I've still learned quite a bit from this thread.