I was told that we have more trees today than we did before Columbus discovered America. Is this true? It does not seem possible with all the roads, cities, towns, parking lots and buildings we have constructed over the years. If we have more trees now than we did hundreds of years ago, why the big deal over harvesting trees? I would like to know the facts.

Thanks

Max

Reply to post by Max Stevens, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

Isupose that this one of those statistical things; being that the average age/size of most trees today is less than they were in the 15th century there are more scrubby immature trees per acre.

Tho one can argue that the total "biomass" of woody plants is a fraction of what it was at that time. The old story of the squirrel running from the coast to the Mis'sip.

Reply to post by jps, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

That's right it's called succession. A forest starts out with thosands of seedlings which turn into thousands of trees. Which turns into hundreds of trees. Which turns into fifty trees, which turns into ten or so mature trees. Succession...

Reply to post by Max Stevens, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

I've heard similar claims with various time frames- a century ago, two centuries, Columbus' time...

Little of it actually documented, at least in two lit searches I did (local public library and U of Delaware, about 6 years ago). Some early photos, including a few aerial shots in Delaware seem to show more forest cover now than when the photos were taken in the 1930s. This agrees with a general guess-timate of forest stand age for this area.

As John and Bill pointed out, succession means a younger forest will have more trees, but smaller ones. Actually, once a forest matures (not the individual trees), the biomass remains relatively constant (John Berglund, Silvics, 1973). Lots of little trees equal fewer large trees.

I'd really like to see some firm evidence of the forest cover comparing the current to times past. Although I'm sure America wasn't covered every inch with trees, there likewise probably weren't the huge open tracts of what is now farmland and developments.

Reply to post by Max Stevens, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

I think it is also important to consider what trees are being discussed. A city full of Bradford pears, purple leaf plums, and seedless cultivars of this-and-that — with an understory of lawn — is not at all the same thing as any successional stage of any forest. So what if we actually do have more trees now than we did then; if the trees we have now are all in loblolly pine plantations where any other species is banished as a weed, then I think we must be considered the poorer for it. I rue the day a few summers ago when the town in which I live decided the brambles, et al., across the street were unattractive and forced the owner to bush hog the site. We have not had a wood thrush within hearing distance since then.
Give me an Appalachian cove forest, where there is greater diversity than any other place on earth, any day!

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

Go into second hand book stores and look at the coffe table foto collections from the mid-late 19th century. Look at the voluum of wood harvested to build/support the railway expantion and the conduct of the civil war by the Union government. Tens of thousand cord/day we used just for fuel in the war. one should be able to infer something from figures like that.

Reply to post by jps, on January 04, 2000 at 21:27:06:

An interesting article this weekend in the Wilmington (DE) News Journal- what was life like at first millenium. It said early settlers here report you "could drive a wagon from one end of [Delmarva Penninsula] to the other without hitting a tree or seeing the sun." The whole area was forest, with large, widely spaced trees, and a nearly complete canopy.

Reply to post by Max Stevens, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

I have heard Rush Blowbag repeat this line of BS too many times.

Last year I stopped at a library book sale and bought a book titled "A Forest Journey: The role of wood in the development of civilization" by John Perlin. This is a very interesting book that traces wood use in ancient to modern civilizations. The sotry has not changed. Just the players and the tools.

One interesting itme he writes about is how the forests of England were depleted to fule the iron industry not to build the Royal Navy like other people have written.

Worth looking for the book.

Tom

Reply to post by Tom Dunlap, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

Two more bits of history.

Ireland was reportedly deforested to make timbers for the English mines (coal and-or iron?) to support the iron industry. I don't recall a source other than lectures at University College Dublin.

Archaeological study (either D.A.E Garrod or Kathleen Kenyon) of the pollen record show that Palestine was deforested in the third millineum BC to fuel the bronze age.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on January 17, 2000 at 08:14:48:

That is what is stated in this book.

In the past, industrial use of wood as fuel seems to have lead to more tree loss than using trees as timber.

Now that we are in the era of "sustained yield," BMPs, etc. it seems that our society wants more lumber than the forests can produce without pushing to production. That is why we have monoculture timber stands. Short rotations don't allow the trees to become as large as in the past. It doesn't make echonomical sense. It might make environmental sense, but that is another issue.

Unless our society demands less lumber we will continue to have economic and environmental clashes.

Tom

Reply to post by tom Dunlap, on January 17, 2000 at 10:33:24:

I think we are seeing signs that the problem is beginning to be addressed, Tom. Structural lumber is giving way to alternatives. Pressboard sheets instead of plywood, particle board or chip board with 2x2 stiffeners for floor joists, etc. These do not require the large timber, but are made from fiber of young trees. I'm sure there are many other examples. There is always a delay between need and effective solutions.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on January 17, 2000 at 13:04:09:

I used to dumpster dive at a local furnichure factory for clips to do wood working projects. A few years ago they went to pressed board and do there own veneer and lam.

there is a hybrid poplar that can be grown on an eight year copice for chip board.

Reply to post by Max Stevens, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

Some areas of the country may indeed have more trees than they did several centuries ago. With fire suppression comes an invasion of the prarie by woody vegetation. In other areas species mixture changes with disturbance or fire suppression.

Reply to post by tom Dunlap, on January 17, 2000 at 10:33:24:

Tom, The use of lumber for furniture and building is one of the most important environmental acts we can perform.
It would seem at first glance that this may not be the case but you need to consider the value of stored carbon
in lumber. The use of wood waste products to produce other products is important. If you go to steel or other
products we need to consider are they renewable and how much fossil fuel is used to produce them (internationally on average).

What we realy need is a lot more trees planted and regenerated. Of course one might consider paper consumpion as bad as
most paper has a short life cycle for the energy used to make it. Perhaps some of our urban wood could be better used
as well.

My 2Cents worth.

Mark

Reply to post by Max Stevens, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

Regarding a previous post concerning trespass and conversion. Can anyone assist in this situation:
Our state statute requires "value" to be established by a "registered forester". However, the theft involved ornamental trees (part of a rural historic landscape) as opposed to standing timber being considered for harvest. A "certified aborist" has established the replacement value using a plant appraisal handbook used by those in the industry.
A consulting "registered forester" confirms the loss and defers to the opinion of the certified arborist.

Plaintiff Attorney in the case still expresses concern that the value (as defined by the statute) may only be established by a registered forester - who - arguably - may not be qualified to express an opinion regarding plant/tree appraisal.

Can anyone assist me in advising of other cases
where the courts have accepted such expert testimony of a "certified arborist."

I need some assistance convincing this attorney, the industry, and perhaps the courts, recognize a distinction between urban/ornamental foresters(certified arborists) as opposed to simply "registered foresters."

Thanks in advance for any and all assistance!

Reply to post by Tom Dunlap, on January 02, 2000 at 14:47:22:

It is the case that there is more forested land
in Vermont than during pre-industrial revolution
days. I would expect similar situations in other
areas. The reason is that there is less farming,
and therefore land clearing. The old fields
have gone back to forest.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on January 09, 2000 at 13:13:09:

In the Pacific NW, when first settled by Euros,
the Dougfirs and cedars were so close that it
was hard to ride a horse through, and these
were big big trees. For a look at this history,
try a wonderful novel called the Living, by
Annie Dillard.