|
Post by jakebird on Jul 16, 2008 4:54:28 GMT -4
This is a specific area with documented "considerable" hobblebush:
The 500-acre (200-ha) Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area within the Bald Eagle State Forest includes one of the few stands of old-growth forest remaining in Pennsylvania and is among the largest such stands existing within Pennsylvania state forests (Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry). Five tree species dominate the Snyder-Middleswarth landscape including eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), black birch (Betula lenta), red maple (Acer rubrum) and chestnut oak (Quercus montana). Two additional tree species, eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) and striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), are present but are far less common. The dominant tree species are visibly segregated within this forest owing to the environmental and edaphic variation ranging from the Swift Run bottomlands to the slopes and ridge tops, the adaptations of species to subsets of environmental and edaphic conditions, differential exposure to wind and storm events, and the years of competitive interactions among species (Zawadzkas and Abrahamson 2003). The old-growth forest is located in a narrow and steep ravine between two ridges thatrun east to west; Buck Mountain lies to the north and Thick Mountain to the south. The ravine, created by Swift Run, has well-developed north-facing and south-facing slopes as well as a bottomland. Elevations in the area range from 1480 ft to 1800 ft (450 m to 550 m), with slopes varying in steepness from 1-68%. The predominant soils are extremely stony and sandy well-drained loams that have weathered from sandstone and shale and have low to moderate available water capacity (Eckenrode 1985). Thanks originally to the inaccessibility of this ravine and in 1965 to its preservation as a National Natural Landmark, [glow=red,2,300]a 330-acre (135-ha) portion of this forest has never been logged. The extent of direct human impact to the area is a footpath that runs along the northern bank of Swift Run and loops back along the north-facing slope. Hunting of deer and other game is allowed in the adjoining state forestlands[/glow]
Particularly striking is the uniqueness of the species compositions of the bottomland versus the northern ridge top. Hemlock and yellow birch almost equally dominate the bottomland to the exclusion of other tree species whereas on the northern ridge top, chestnut oak, red maple, and black birch dominate but neither hemlock nor yellow birch are present. The shrub layer is not particularly well developed [glow=red,2,300]but does contain considerable hobblebush (Viburnum alnifolium)[/glow] and some rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum). The herbaceous layer contains abundant woodferns (Dryopteris spp.), painted trillium (Trilliumundulatum), wild lily-of-the-valley (Maianthemum canadense), sweet white violet (Viola blanda
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 16, 2008 8:47:41 GMT -4
No one from the DCNR district 9 office was invited to go along with Sharp and Nale.I know for a fact that DCNR send Nale a rebuttal.We'll have to wait and see what his response is.In any event,I'd love for the Professor to be there but this is really just an informal look at all these areas.I've spoken with two forester from DCNR and a land manager fromthe PGC.None have noticed any possitive effects from the liming of those areas.except for the effect it had on Bracken ferns.The areas that were limed had plenty of sunlight and advanced regeneration prior to the lime treatment and nothing else tocompare it with.
Jakebird,if lime was the treap alternative,why wouldn't DCNR and theUS forest service be jumping on it?these guys have been studying the effects of lime for a long time.They understand it well.They've done many of their own studies.In fact,the one forester that I spoke with was involved with a big liming project in Potter county during the 1980's.
No one is saying that acid and poor soils aren't a problem in certain areas.They are but applying lime is not going to increase the carrying capacity.There are more exclosures in Moshannon state forest than I can even count.The rainfall and the soils are the same inside as out.The only difference is the removal of the deer and the regnerationinside the fences is night and day.
Does it say in that article what the deer density is and if it was ever fenced?
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 16, 2008 9:02:48 GMT -4
Wow,I google Hobblebush in Pa and all kinds of interesting articles come up.WEvery one talking about how rare it is in pa these days.Here's an exept from the very first link that comes up.[Dr. Tim Morris points towhat may be the sole hobblebush plant on the 3000 acres nescopeck park.Why so rare,because it's the favorite food of white tailed deer.]
Hobblebush used to be abundant all across thenorthern tier of Pa and now it's almost non-existent because the deer ate it all.That's another fact that youcan't dispute Jakebird.One little ridge with some growing on it does not prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 16, 2008 9:03:57 GMT -4
I guess you don't want to talk about hobble bush anymore ,now that you have proven to be wrong once again. Hobble bush needs specific conditions to survive and those conditions in many areas of been altered by timbering ,forest fires and erosion.
Liming many not produce a dramatic effect with oak seedling regeneration, but if they combined liming and fertilizer there would be a significant increase in the rate of growth of all seedlings.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 16, 2008 9:13:16 GMT -4
That doesn't prove anything.Find one article that states hobblebush was wiped out by timbering,fires and erosion.You can't do it.
Lime and fertizer may very well help seedling growth.However,the biggest problem they face is having too many deer eat them and the exclosures prove it without a doubt.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 16, 2008 10:30:40 GMT -4
Find one forester that claims that the deer wiped out the hobble bush on southern exposures with shallow soil and I will show you a very biased ,liar who blames everything bad on the deer.
I already agreed that exclosures prove that deer can prevent regeneration . But, they don't answer the question as why very few deer can cause a problem in 2G while there is much better regeneration in 2E with much higher DD.
Why won't you state you position on further HR in 2G and 2F? Don't you believe those WMUs deserve to have a healthy forest? Why won't the PGC reduce the herd in 2F when only 32% of the plots are regenerating?Could it be that the PGC realizes that further herd reduction will not improve forest health, just like they admitted further HR wouldn't improve herd health?
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 16, 2008 13:19:22 GMT -4
I can't answer that question BT except to say that they were stabilzing the herd in both wmu's until they had more data.
The habitat is much different in 2G than 2E.It's more fragmented with agriculture and has easier access.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 16, 2008 14:14:12 GMT -4
It's not that you can't answer the question, it is simply that you refuse to answer that question because you don't like the answer.
That doesn't matter one iota to the PGC since they manage the herd based on forest health , not habitat health or the carrying capacity of the habitat. Besides the PGC supporters have been telling us for years that deer needed forested habitat and browse to survive the winter, so why isn't the high DD in 2E causing over browsing during the winter when farm crops aren't available?
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jul 16, 2008 20:18:44 GMT -4
Wow,I google Hobblebush in Pa and all kinds of interesting articles come up.WEvery one talking about how rare it is in pa these days.Here's an exept from the very first link that comes up.[Dr. Tim Morris points towhat may be the sole hobblebush plant on the 3000 acres nescopeck park.Why so rare,because it's the favorite food of white tailed deer.] Hobblebush used to be abundant all across thenorthern tier of Pa and now it's almost non-existent because the deer ate it all.That's another fact that youcan't dispute Jakebird.One little ridge with some growing on it does not prove otherwise. But what it does prove is that some "considerable" hobblebush is surviving even in the very state forest you claim such extensive browse damage from years of high DD. You said it had diappeared and I took that literally and checked it out myself. I'm not saying the deer didn't eat it...and it is a plant fairly resistant to high acid soils...but what if we stop and think of the other species that are much less resistant, and thus struggling to regenerate in higher pH levels, limiting their availability to deer and perhaps putting added stress on the hobblebush that it wouldn't necessarily see in a healthier forest. Remember, it is resistant to acid soils when many other species are not. It could have been one of the last preffered browse species able to regenerate, making it one of the few choices on the menu, making matters even worse. Multiplying the browsing effect because of the overall effects of acid rain and poor timber practices. Liming could help, but the easiest numb brained solution for the DCNR is to keep killing deer. Liming alone may not work miracles, but couple it with fertilizers, esp nitrogen fertilizers and open sufficent canopy for sunlight to reach the forest floor and we really might see healthier forests than we've ever seen. Using the excuse that it costs too much money only cements my accusation that the DCNR and timber companies only care about profits, not the best interest of the forest and the wildlife. If they took ONE state forest, even a several thousand acre fraction of ONE state forest, and applied those principles I think the results would speak for themselves. They could easily double the CC .....but it's not about anything but harvesting pole timber. Regeneration is only an issue to them when it's their hardwood seedlings ($) that are geting browsed. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong about it. And prove it by naming one state forest where they are still looking for any solution other than slaughtering the deer or fencing them out. Men like Sharpe are the true scientists as he is till trying to solve the real problem with regeneration, not slapping a bandaid on it with the easiest possible solution.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 17, 2008 9:05:43 GMT -4
Moshannon state forest and the Alleghany national forest to name two.They've done and are still doing studies on lime,fire,herbicides and other forestry practices.I've seen them myself.All are useful in certain situations but not practical in even most sitiations.Regardless,they still don't override the most important factor,deer.
Show me one study that proves any or all of those things will even come close to doubling the carrying capacity over the long run.
Also,you never told me how many acres a year should be cut on a 1000 acres tract of saw timber.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 17, 2008 9:33:44 GMT -4
That's easy!!! The herd and the harvests over the 20 years prior to 2000 proved beyond a doubt the carrying capacity of the habitat is over double the current 8-9 DPSM in 2G.
The answer obviously is 10 acres/ year or 100 acres every 10 years. The result in the log term would be 200 acres in the seedling sapling stage,600 acres of pole timber and 200 acres of saw timber.
Should the PGC reduce the herd even more in 2F and 2G to improve forest health from poor to good or is poor forest health acceptable to you?
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 17, 2008 9:45:10 GMT -4
TRhat's not the answer BT and you know it.Show me a study that proves liming and fertilizing will more than double the longterm carrying capacity.
Nice answer BT but Jakebird was complaining that timbering 20 acres would be too little.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 17, 2008 11:47:54 GMT -4
The point is we don't need liming and fertilizer to double the carrying capacity ,because the herd in 2G is being managed at 25-30% of the max. CC. We need harvests that don't equal or exceed recruit.Liming and fertilizer would accelerate the growth rate of seedlings after a cut thereby increasing regeneration without further reducing the herd in 2F and 2 G to convert those forests with poor forest health to forests with good forest health and higher deer densities.
Jakebird is right, 20acres/yr will guarantee failed regeneration. But,100 acres/ 10 yr. with liming and fertilizer will produce the desired results if combined with proper forest management which includes TSI cuts.
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jul 17, 2008 19:00:06 GMT -4
why would sharp invite smebody to go who has no idea what they are talking about
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jul 17, 2008 19:11:43 GMT -4
A farmer knows he has to take care of the land to have good production. He limes and fertilizes on a regular basis. Always attentive to the land.
What does the forester and timber company do for the land to enhance production?
|
|