Tweet
I know this question has come up before with regard building maintained ski glades on forest preserve lands. As far as I know, the DEC has held firm on their stance that cutting of trees, even saplings, over a large area is against the mission of the forest preserve.
Being a ski advocate, I thought perhaps this was a bit overbearing on the DEC's part. Why would the forest care if a few saplings were missing? Or some other "brush" species. Does the forest really care?
In turns out, based on the most current research, that yes, yes it does!
As crazy as it sounds, all the evidence shows that trees have a vast communication network via a symbiotic relationship with the mycelium of fungi and with other tree species. And within species, it has been shown that older "mother" trees actually "teach" and select the best of their offspring, or even other species to cull the next generation of forest.
It has been shown that forest health, and resistance to pests and disease is largely related to this relationship, and that the old trees "learn" and send messages to the younger generations. It's not understood how this information is stored, but the data shows that trees definitely learn and share information chemically about how to protect themselves, and their community. Therefore removing certain species, even seemingly benign brushy wooded plants may change their overall response to things like drought or pests. It may seem kind of odd to think of it this way, but if a plant is growing near a tree, it's kind of only doing so because the tree is allowing it to. Larger trees control shading and nutrient absorption for most of the forest ecosystem (maybe all!). I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think this is why with single species plantations we don't see understory development. Single species plantations have been shown to have very poor health and very poor relationship with their neighboring trees - very few mycelium connections or root connections. Instead of acting as a multi-species, multi-kingdom super being, they go into a sort of panic mode where they directly compete with each other rather than the collective nurturing that is seen in natural forests.
So blah, blah.
TLDR version: It actually matters if we cull the forest rather than letting the forest cull itself. We may not select the trees that will do best in the next generation, but the older trees will. We also may take species or disrupt interactions that we have a very hard time seeing in the short term. Forests act in a very interconnected way not only between species, but across species and kingdoms. It is shown that vast chemical transfers exist between the whole forest, somewhat resembling a neural network.
So whatever the reasons may be, the science shows our best, healthiest forest are the ones that have the longest time to mature, and learn, and then teach their younger generations the best way to "manage" their ecosystem.
Being a ski advocate, I thought perhaps this was a bit overbearing on the DEC's part. Why would the forest care if a few saplings were missing? Or some other "brush" species. Does the forest really care?
In turns out, based on the most current research, that yes, yes it does!
As crazy as it sounds, all the evidence shows that trees have a vast communication network via a symbiotic relationship with the mycelium of fungi and with other tree species. And within species, it has been shown that older "mother" trees actually "teach" and select the best of their offspring, or even other species to cull the next generation of forest.
It has been shown that forest health, and resistance to pests and disease is largely related to this relationship, and that the old trees "learn" and send messages to the younger generations. It's not understood how this information is stored, but the data shows that trees definitely learn and share information chemically about how to protect themselves, and their community. Therefore removing certain species, even seemingly benign brushy wooded plants may change their overall response to things like drought or pests. It may seem kind of odd to think of it this way, but if a plant is growing near a tree, it's kind of only doing so because the tree is allowing it to. Larger trees control shading and nutrient absorption for most of the forest ecosystem (maybe all!). I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think this is why with single species plantations we don't see understory development. Single species plantations have been shown to have very poor health and very poor relationship with their neighboring trees - very few mycelium connections or root connections. Instead of acting as a multi-species, multi-kingdom super being, they go into a sort of panic mode where they directly compete with each other rather than the collective nurturing that is seen in natural forests.
So blah, blah.
TLDR version: It actually matters if we cull the forest rather than letting the forest cull itself. We may not select the trees that will do best in the next generation, but the older trees will. We also may take species or disrupt interactions that we have a very hard time seeing in the short term. Forests act in a very interconnected way not only between species, but across species and kingdoms. It is shown that vast chemical transfers exist between the whole forest, somewhat resembling a neural network.
So whatever the reasons may be, the science shows our best, healthiest forest are the ones that have the longest time to mature, and learn, and then teach their younger generations the best way to "manage" their ecosystem.
Comment