Post by crazyhorservn on Jul 8, 2008 8:39:20 GMT -4
www.centredaily.com/sports/story/697718.html
I guess USP is right.
Sports
email
AIM
reprint or license
Print
Sunday, Jul. 06, 2008
Afield
Lime Aid
Old farming method proves fruitful in state forests
Mark Nale
Farmers cannot grow healthy and profitable crops without an annual or nearly-annual addition of minerals in the form of either fertilizer or animal manure to their fields.
Expensive fences are still being erected after forest harvests in many state forests. According to Sharpe, better results could often be achieved through less-expensive liming.
Acid precipitation lowers the soil’s pH and causes needed minerals to leach out. Therefore, in much of central Pennsylvania, lime must also be added on a regular basis to “sweeten” the tillable soil — bringing its pH back to neutral.
Last week, I spent an enjoyable day in northcentral Pennsylvania with Penn State University professor emeritus William Sharpe as we toured various forest projects of which he has been a part of over the past five years. We saw deer, picked wild blueberries, listened to bird calls, and jumped a recently-born fawn from its bed. We also reconstructed the trail of a hungry bear that had climbed and crossed an eight-foot-high deer exclosure fence and left a path of destruction as it ripped apart rotten logs, looking for insect grubs.
However, we were not on a wildlife safari — Sharpe wanted to show me forest projects on state forest and state game lands. In most cases, pelletized lime or limestone sand had been used to treat the forest. Some of the areas had also been fenced to keep deer out and several of the areas had non-limed control sections for comparison. According to
Sharpe, our forests are just like those farmers’ fields. Decades of acid precipitation has removed alkalinity and lowered the pH of the forest soil. Timber harvest, just like a farmer’s harvest of a corn crop, also removes minerals and nutrients from the soil. Liming is necessary to improve soils and grow new trees, particularly acid-sensitive species such as sugar maple and red oak. In addition, liming has been shown to increase the number and diversity of forest birds and wildflower species.
Although deer are a part of the forest equation, Sharpe said that the issues involving forest ecology and regeneration are complex with many contributing variables.
Advertisement“Deer have been villainized, but in many cases forest soils are a bigger problem than the deer,” he said.
Our first stop was a fenced area along the Caledonia Pike in the Moshannon State Forest. This is a non-limed area that had been recently fenced by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resource Bureau of Forestry. We found modest regeneration occurring both inside and outside of the fence, with a predominance of acid-tolerant fire cherry. We both wondered why the area had been fenced.
We then turned onto Merrill Road and stopped at a non-fenced area that had been limed through a Growing Greener grant from the state — part of 250 acres of the Gifford Run watershed— in an attempt to raise the stream’s pH. The trees in this area had been marked for harvest, but not yet cut. A postage-stamp-sized square had been fenced to exclude deer. Almost
no understory was present at this site, and there was no difference between the area inside the tiny deer exclosure and the surrounding forest.
“Look at the forest canopy, light is the limiting factor here,” Sharpe explained. “I’d expect to see good regeneration in this limed area once the trees have been harvested.”
We next looked at two areas in State Game Lands 34. The first was an unfenced side by side comparison of limed and nonlimed areas. Deer densities are low in this area. Both areas had good regeneration — red and white oak, cucumber, red maple, cherry and serviceberry — however, the limed area exhibited more seedlings and more diversity, while most of the regeneration in the non-limed area was from stump sprouts. There also appeared to be more regeneration of red maple, an acid-tolerant species, in the nonlimed area.
“I’ll have to admit that, as a forester, I’d be happy with the regeneration in both areas,” said Sharpe.
Success — forest regeneration was good. This area did not provide a clear testimonial in favor of liming, but likely evidence for the positive effect of lowered deer numbers on forest regeneration.
We then took an extensive look at a 40-acre fenced plot on SGL 34. One section had been treated with pelletized lime and a second area had been treated with limestone sand. Both limed areas were a jungle of vigorous trees representing many species, including red oak, big-tooth aspen, serviceberry, sassafras, birch and cherry.
“Look at this red oak,” Sharpe said as he calculated the age of the eight-foot-tall tree. The trees were well above the reach of deer, and here we wondered just when the PA Game Commission planned to remove the fence so that wildlife could easily access the forest bounty.
We then walked along the fence until we reached the nonlimed area of the study. It did not take a forester to see a clear difference between the limed and non-limed areas. While regeneration was taking place, there were fewer oak and aspen trees and more red maple and fire cherry. The non-limed and fenced area also had large fern-covered areas with few trees growing at all. I was impressed at the difference that the application of lime had made. Sharpe’s ideas, which have often been ignored by other foresters, seemed logical to me.
Our last stop was a fenced section of the Susquehannock State Forest along the Black Diamond Road, near Inez. According to Sharpe, over a 35-year period, DCNR has been unsuccessful at achieving sugar maple regeneration on a large part of northcentral Pennsylvania. They have tried fencing to keep deer out, herbicidal treatments to remove ferns and other competing vegetation, and cutting to remove other tree species -but it had all been to no avail.
“The last thing that DCNR did was ask to borrow the PSU liming machine. That was in May of 2005,” Sharpe said during our drive north through Elk, Cameron and Potter counties. “I haven’t been back since I took soil samples in 2006, so I don’t know what we’ll find when we get there.”
At the plot, it was clear that DCNR’s shelterwood cut had left many sugar maples as seed trees in the fenced area. According to Sharpe, 13 acres had been treated with four tons of lime per acre, 11 acres with two tons and six acres, the control, had not been limed at all. We walked the treated and untreated areas. In the limed area, Sharpe was pleased to find many one-and two-year-old sugar maples. In some areas, they blanketed the ground, and there were even a few three-year- old seedlings. The nonlimed area looked noticeably different. There were a few first-year sugar maples, but no older specimens. Once again, results seemed to indicate that lime had made a positive difference. However, Sharpe said that it was too early to make a definite judgment.
“There is no free lunch,” Sharpe said. “You might remove a timber crop once or twice and get away with it, but eventually, you’ll have to pay. Acid deposition only accelerates the process.”
And by “pay,” Sharpe was referring to the cost of replenishing essential forest soil minerals.
According to Sharpe, liming a section of forest costs $175 to $200 per acre — a little more than treating with herbicides, but much less than fencing. From what this writer was shown during this tour, liming definitely has a positive effect, but DCNR has been slow to embrace it as a widespread alternative to fencing.
“If I were in charge of our state forests, I’d have soil tests done before every timber harvest,” Sharpe said. “Where warranted, they should apply three tons per acre of high calcium and magnesium dolomite limestone sand during or immediately following the harvest.
“With current deer densities, as long as the area harvested was greater than 20 acres, deer fencing wouldn’t be necessary. At higher deer densities, fencing would provide added insurance.
“This is public land, and I’d like to see it be managed for deer hunting as well as the growth of valuable trees,” Sharpe added. “Is it asking too much for them [the state] to invest half of the profits from the sale of timber back into the forest ecosystem? They would get the regeneration of desirable species like red oak and sugar maple, we’d have more plant diversity, forest birds would be healthier and we could have more deer.”
Mark Nale, who lives in the Bald Eagle Valley, is a member of the PA Outdoor Writers Association. He can be reached at MarkAngler@aol.com.
I guess USP is right.
Sports
AIM
reprint or license
Sunday, Jul. 06, 2008
Afield
Lime Aid
Old farming method proves fruitful in state forests
Mark Nale
Farmers cannot grow healthy and profitable crops without an annual or nearly-annual addition of minerals in the form of either fertilizer or animal manure to their fields.
Expensive fences are still being erected after forest harvests in many state forests. According to Sharpe, better results could often be achieved through less-expensive liming.
Acid precipitation lowers the soil’s pH and causes needed minerals to leach out. Therefore, in much of central Pennsylvania, lime must also be added on a regular basis to “sweeten” the tillable soil — bringing its pH back to neutral.
Last week, I spent an enjoyable day in northcentral Pennsylvania with Penn State University professor emeritus William Sharpe as we toured various forest projects of which he has been a part of over the past five years. We saw deer, picked wild blueberries, listened to bird calls, and jumped a recently-born fawn from its bed. We also reconstructed the trail of a hungry bear that had climbed and crossed an eight-foot-high deer exclosure fence and left a path of destruction as it ripped apart rotten logs, looking for insect grubs.
However, we were not on a wildlife safari — Sharpe wanted to show me forest projects on state forest and state game lands. In most cases, pelletized lime or limestone sand had been used to treat the forest. Some of the areas had also been fenced to keep deer out and several of the areas had non-limed control sections for comparison. According to
Sharpe, our forests are just like those farmers’ fields. Decades of acid precipitation has removed alkalinity and lowered the pH of the forest soil. Timber harvest, just like a farmer’s harvest of a corn crop, also removes minerals and nutrients from the soil. Liming is necessary to improve soils and grow new trees, particularly acid-sensitive species such as sugar maple and red oak. In addition, liming has been shown to increase the number and diversity of forest birds and wildflower species.
Although deer are a part of the forest equation, Sharpe said that the issues involving forest ecology and regeneration are complex with many contributing variables.
Advertisement“Deer have been villainized, but in many cases forest soils are a bigger problem than the deer,” he said.
Our first stop was a fenced area along the Caledonia Pike in the Moshannon State Forest. This is a non-limed area that had been recently fenced by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resource Bureau of Forestry. We found modest regeneration occurring both inside and outside of the fence, with a predominance of acid-tolerant fire cherry. We both wondered why the area had been fenced.
We then turned onto Merrill Road and stopped at a non-fenced area that had been limed through a Growing Greener grant from the state — part of 250 acres of the Gifford Run watershed— in an attempt to raise the stream’s pH. The trees in this area had been marked for harvest, but not yet cut. A postage-stamp-sized square had been fenced to exclude deer. Almost
no understory was present at this site, and there was no difference between the area inside the tiny deer exclosure and the surrounding forest.
“Look at the forest canopy, light is the limiting factor here,” Sharpe explained. “I’d expect to see good regeneration in this limed area once the trees have been harvested.”
We next looked at two areas in State Game Lands 34. The first was an unfenced side by side comparison of limed and nonlimed areas. Deer densities are low in this area. Both areas had good regeneration — red and white oak, cucumber, red maple, cherry and serviceberry — however, the limed area exhibited more seedlings and more diversity, while most of the regeneration in the non-limed area was from stump sprouts. There also appeared to be more regeneration of red maple, an acid-tolerant species, in the nonlimed area.
“I’ll have to admit that, as a forester, I’d be happy with the regeneration in both areas,” said Sharpe.
Success — forest regeneration was good. This area did not provide a clear testimonial in favor of liming, but likely evidence for the positive effect of lowered deer numbers on forest regeneration.
We then took an extensive look at a 40-acre fenced plot on SGL 34. One section had been treated with pelletized lime and a second area had been treated with limestone sand. Both limed areas were a jungle of vigorous trees representing many species, including red oak, big-tooth aspen, serviceberry, sassafras, birch and cherry.
“Look at this red oak,” Sharpe said as he calculated the age of the eight-foot-tall tree. The trees were well above the reach of deer, and here we wondered just when the PA Game Commission planned to remove the fence so that wildlife could easily access the forest bounty.
We then walked along the fence until we reached the nonlimed area of the study. It did not take a forester to see a clear difference between the limed and non-limed areas. While regeneration was taking place, there were fewer oak and aspen trees and more red maple and fire cherry. The non-limed and fenced area also had large fern-covered areas with few trees growing at all. I was impressed at the difference that the application of lime had made. Sharpe’s ideas, which have often been ignored by other foresters, seemed logical to me.
Our last stop was a fenced section of the Susquehannock State Forest along the Black Diamond Road, near Inez. According to Sharpe, over a 35-year period, DCNR has been unsuccessful at achieving sugar maple regeneration on a large part of northcentral Pennsylvania. They have tried fencing to keep deer out, herbicidal treatments to remove ferns and other competing vegetation, and cutting to remove other tree species -but it had all been to no avail.
“The last thing that DCNR did was ask to borrow the PSU liming machine. That was in May of 2005,” Sharpe said during our drive north through Elk, Cameron and Potter counties. “I haven’t been back since I took soil samples in 2006, so I don’t know what we’ll find when we get there.”
At the plot, it was clear that DCNR’s shelterwood cut had left many sugar maples as seed trees in the fenced area. According to Sharpe, 13 acres had been treated with four tons of lime per acre, 11 acres with two tons and six acres, the control, had not been limed at all. We walked the treated and untreated areas. In the limed area, Sharpe was pleased to find many one-and two-year-old sugar maples. In some areas, they blanketed the ground, and there were even a few three-year- old seedlings. The nonlimed area looked noticeably different. There were a few first-year sugar maples, but no older specimens. Once again, results seemed to indicate that lime had made a positive difference. However, Sharpe said that it was too early to make a definite judgment.
“There is no free lunch,” Sharpe said. “You might remove a timber crop once or twice and get away with it, but eventually, you’ll have to pay. Acid deposition only accelerates the process.”
And by “pay,” Sharpe was referring to the cost of replenishing essential forest soil minerals.
According to Sharpe, liming a section of forest costs $175 to $200 per acre — a little more than treating with herbicides, but much less than fencing. From what this writer was shown during this tour, liming definitely has a positive effect, but DCNR has been slow to embrace it as a widespread alternative to fencing.
“If I were in charge of our state forests, I’d have soil tests done before every timber harvest,” Sharpe said. “Where warranted, they should apply three tons per acre of high calcium and magnesium dolomite limestone sand during or immediately following the harvest.
“With current deer densities, as long as the area harvested was greater than 20 acres, deer fencing wouldn’t be necessary. At higher deer densities, fencing would provide added insurance.
“This is public land, and I’d like to see it be managed for deer hunting as well as the growth of valuable trees,” Sharpe added. “Is it asking too much for them [the state] to invest half of the profits from the sale of timber back into the forest ecosystem? They would get the regeneration of desirable species like red oak and sugar maple, we’d have more plant diversity, forest birds would be healthier and we could have more deer.”
Mark Nale, who lives in the Bald Eagle Valley, is a member of the PA Outdoor Writers Association. He can be reached at MarkAngler@aol.com.