Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 For the record, I am not in favor of clear cutting and sterile single species grow back. What I mean is I see large sections of cuts up there when I go and I dont see anything planted back in some areas but what does grow back would attract game and as long as places like that that have grown back brushy are intermingled amongst the sterile sections of plain o pine there would be game around. I love virgin forest too.. duh Like going deep in the creeks in the area and finding the old Cypress in there along the water. There is diversity along the waterways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 An extra large foot is an adaptation like any other, I expect. What is it good for? Supporting a larger body mass in swampy/snow conditions maybe, for one? Friction is your friend when climbing anything. A larger footpad gets you more friction. Instead, you can use claws, another adaptive strategy, or for the legless reptiles, you can, well, slither and slink. Primates have adapted the first strategy, and if you try climbing a tree in your back yard using only your toenails, you'll prove it to yourself. Really, adaptive evolutionary traits can be obvious, or hard to discern. On this point, it seems we don't have to tax ourselves too hard, wouldn't y'all agree? If any want to have a better understanding of the N.A. mixed mesophytic forest, then and now, get Chris Bolgiano's "Appalachian Forest." Come to think of it, I'm due to read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 God, the internet is depressing. Amen to that.. Probable or Likely ...sic Samples offered , samples not accepted , not given the opportunity to be looked at by top DNA guy. I know this particular sample well , can't vouche for any others. Perhaps you missed the tongue poking into my cheek. Let's try this again: how can a sample be " probably BF". No such distinction exists in science. There is no type specimen or classification so there is no result such as " probably BF". That is something you made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Luckily, I'm heading back to Disneyland in less than 24 hours, so I won't need to wade through it much longer. HAHA! I was starting to feel sorry for you until I realized you get to go out and see wood apes, which nuh uh nuh uh! you aren't seeing no way no how. We stay here and keep reading that. At least someone who goes out of their way to spend a lot of time in them. So just to summarize the past couple of pages, cutting down old mature forests to the dirt and planting one simple tree in its place is good and there have been hundreds of DNA studies conducted that prove the 8 foot tall hairy flatfooted rock thrower is a human. God, the internet is depressing. Makes one want to hold one's head. Actually, I find the internet rich and stimulating...beyond the point of understanding a lot of the backwater thinking that goes on here. You're doing the good work. Soldier on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I reckon Bipto missed the part about nursey trees and possibly, their function. Also, clear cutting causes regeneration of the forbs a mature forest canopy starves out, with the result a dramatic increase in usable habitat for prey species which in turn, creates usable habitat for predators. After the ~5th season, the growth structure is such that a refuge of almost impenetrable nature is created for both prey & predator. Successive cuttings start the process, all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 No, actually he nailed it right on the head. A "nursery tree" is no replacement for woods cut down to the dirt. That forest will never come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I reckon Bipto missed the part about nursey trees and possibly, their function. Also, clear cutting causes regeneration of the forbs a mature forest canopy starves out, with the result a dramatic increase in usable habitat for prey species which in turn, creates usable habitat for predators. After the ~5th season, the growth structure is such that a refuge of almost impenetrable nature is created for both prey & predator. Successive cuttings start the process, all over again. Which is exactly what I said Amen to that.. Perhaps you missed the tongue poking into my cheek. Let's try this again: how can a sample be " probably BF". No such distinction exists in science. There is no type specimen or classification so there is no result such as " probably BF". That is something you made up. I got your intent but "probably" was due to the physical characteristics of the hair and that other species ruled out by biologists plus the substantial anedoctal provenance of where it came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 No, actually he nailed it right on the head. A "nursery tree" is no replacement for woods cut down to the dirt. That forest will never come back. It's pretty obvious you haven't a clue as to the function of nursery trees and that open ground (down there) quickly produces more useable habitat for prey (and predator) in much more volume than the puny post oak acorns (which is right above starvation, on the list of preferred whitetail forage) that comprise the majority of what is edible, pre-cutting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You need to stop this. I know all about what nursery trees are for; and whitetail numbers are a sign of ecological impoverishment, not biodiversity. Shoot, you could groom the land for desert species. But that's not what lives there. Lose the forest, and everything - even the deer - will eventually follow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 The Native Americans burned the understory in the old growth forests, this achieved the same effect of attracting prey animals, as selective cutting would do. Clear Cutting paper trees is not good for a forest when it is replanted with trees that are not native. Especially for animals and birds that require different stages, and certain types of trees to exist. One of the Woodpeckers in the Ouachita Range is endangered because all of the old growth nesting cavities are no longer around in large quantities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Natives kept most of the forest, but burned it in selected places to encourage edge habitat and animals that use that. What they actually did most was "encourage" by burning places that were already open to stay that way. The problem with any cutting that takes too many trees is the length of time it will take for anything like that to come back...and that has a zero likelihood if you plant something that isn't native. Edited June 19, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 In the Rockies, Mother Nature after a forest fire "replants" herself with a single species as well. The lodge pole pine, these small fast growing trees prep the ground for the follow on forest which is more permanent. Such as fir, larch and ponderosa pine. http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lodgepole_pine_Yellowstone_1998_near_firehole.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 The lack of Native American controlled burning has completely changed the remaining old growth forests of Eastern Oklahoma in the last 65 years. http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v87/p15_29.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I reckon Bipto missed the part about nursey trees and possibly, their function. Also, clear cutting causes regeneration of the forbs a mature forest canopy starves out, with the result a dramatic increase in usable habitat for prey species which in turn, creates usable habitat for predators. After the ~5th season, the growth structure is such that a refuge of almost impenetrable nature is created for both prey & predator. Successive cuttings start the process, all over again. You sound like a logging industry tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Disagreements aside Good Luck out there Bip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts