I can only begin to imagine what the deforestation by Europeans in America meant. I've seen some stuff on the Redwoods of California, and that alone is a pretty sad chapter.
Come to think of it, the Redwoods do grow rather old don't they? A couple of thousand years for re-naturalisation is perhaps quite close to the mark there? However, for the dominant tree species up here in the Frostpit (spruce and pine), 300 years is a very decent age. That's also the threshold they've set for SNAW status. After one and a half cycles (450 years), you'd have the full spectrum from saplings to the last stage of decomposition. By then, all signs of past human management will be invisible. Other remnants of human presence may linger, but how long are arcaeological remains interesting for the current status of the forest. :-) We have an interesting case in Norway these days, an area called Trillemarka. WWF, for example, runs the protection case as a campaign. They have an English text on their case here: http://passport.panda.org/campaigns/campaign.cfm?uNC=08314749&uCampaignId=1461 The conservationists have argued that this area has seen no human exploitation for at least 300 years, and is therefore SNAW. With protection, it will almost double the total area of protected old forest in Norway. Scientists sampling the area, however, have brought back photos of moss-grown stubs and house fundaments from the core area. C14 dating shows the remnants to be no older than 150 years, IIRC. The conservationists suddenly found themselves in a bit of a fix because of their emphasis on SNAW status. The area in question is a beautiful place and would deserve protection based on aestethics alone, though. The jury's still out on the issue, so fingers crossed. Jostein 2007/7/3, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Because it needs to go through a couple of cycles before it is a purely > natural forest. The US has lots of what I call National Woodlots (National > Forests) that have been more or less allowed to grow wild for 50-100 years. > They are still just overgrowth and not a real forest. They never will be real > forests until the current stuff dies and a new cycle grows. > > Proud Lake State Park in Michigan has what is claimed to be the largest uncut > tract of softwood forest in the US. Even that tiny 65 acre patch is eerily > different than any regrown wood I have ever been in. When you think that > there was about a million square miles of that forest when the Europeans > arrived in North America, you begin to realize what has been lost. > > Of course a woodlot is better than not having any trees at all. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > AlunFoto wrote: > > Why would you need "several thousand years", Graywolf? > > > > Jostein > > > > 2007/7/3, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> If you want forest to go back to the "untouched by man" state, it takes > >> several thousand years. What folks do not realize is that before the > >> development of metal tools the forests were man's unrelenting enemy slowly > >> taking over any cleared land. > >> > >> graywolf > >> http://www.graywolfphoto.com > >> http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > >> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > >> ----------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> AlunFoto wrote: > >> > >>> It puzzles me a bit that they claim "this resource cannot increase". > >>> Certainly, if an area is left to itself for a couple of centuries...? > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
