http://getgopi.blogspot.com/2007/06/anatomy-of-scene.html

I admit that in using the term “old growth” I am bowing to popular usage, whereas in fact I mean something more akin to “primary forest.” As I tried to make clear in my second paragraph, I don’t think the focus should be exclusively (or even mainly) on preserving stands of big old trees; we need to preserve and recover large, natural — or wild –forested landscapes.

The problem is, as always, how to communicate the ideals that I think we share here, and I would suggest that’s something that ought to vary according to the audience. As you can see from some of the other comments here, I am not preaching to the choir: this is a general-interest blog, and these ideas are totally new for many people. I do like your application of autopoiesis to forest systems a lot — that’s why I included the Leverett quote — and agree that it helps refocus the debate in a very useful direction. But “autopoietic” is going to be a big, scary word to a lot of people.

Incidentally, I also think the word “wild” accomplishes many of the same things, at least for the kind of non-scientific writing I do. I agee with Dave Foreman that wildness is a better way to talk about the ecosystem attributes we want to see than naturalness: the latter merely implies the absence of humans, while the former emphasizes the prevalence of larger-than-human realities such as natural disturbance regimes, large carnivores, and free-flowing rivers. “Wild” meaning “self-willed” and all that.

I’m not a language purist, and I’m also not above using the language of managment to try and make points with those who assume that responsible land stewardship (another problematic word) inevitably involves management. There are people coming out of the forestry schools who are susceptible to persuasion on many of these issues, but we have to meet them part-way. I’m not willing to write them off, because many of them are people who genuinely love the woods. But they have also been, by and large, completely indoctrinated into the management ideology, and ideologies are tough things to confront head-on.

The problem with using the term “old growth forest” to preserve natural systems is that an old growth forest is simply a temporal snapshot in a shifting mosaic of vegetation. IF preservation is based solely on the defintion of “old growth” then I contend that it is inevitable that ALL old growth forests will eventually be disturbed and return to earlier successive seres disqualifying them for preservation. We need to focus more on the “autopoietic” nature of the forest. IF the forest is not being MANaged and is therefore regulated by natural processes resulting from the interaction of many species and the environment then we can say the system is “natural” and it is these autopoietic forests that should be set aside for preservation.

Gary A. B eluzo
Professor of Environmental Science
Division of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Holyoke Community College
303 Homestead Avenue
Holyoke, MA 01040

gbeluzo@hcc.mass.edu
http://www.hcc.edu/forest

Depending on the type of forest and its disturbance/management history, radically different strategies might be in order. For example, if you’re dealing with a white oak forest or post oak savanna, you’d probably want to look at prescribed burning. If you’re dealing with a forest that’s been badly infected with invasive plants, some sort of eradication program using Boy Scout volunteers and/or Round-Up might be advisable. Seeding and innoculation might be advisable to restore missing wildflowers or fungi, if relatively local germ plasm and undisturbed soils can be founnd. Our main management tactic here, as I think I mentioned in the article, has been whittailed deer population control through effective hunter management; the nuts and bolts of how to do that will obviously vary from state to state.

The two hardest things about managing for old growth I think are: 1) accepting that we really don’t know what’s best, and therefore responding with extreme conservatism and humility to unexpected developments (e.g. not spraying BT for a gypsy moth outbreak, not rushing to plant trees in the wake of a stand-clearing disturbance); and 2) thinking centuries ahead, well beyond the lifetimes of the current owners. If they are serious about managing for old growth, I would certainly advise some sort of conservation easement, perhaps even outright ownership by a nonprofit organization. (We’re moving in the latter direction ourselves.)

I’ve spent all day researching old growth forest info for a landowner client of mine (forestry firm). I’ll definitely be bookmarking your site as a source of knowledge for myself and the client. What I’m having a hard time finding are any recommendations, action plans or management techniques to enhance the old growth habitat. I know that older growth forests are especially intricate in structure and balance, so I’m trying to pool all resources I can find to ensure that my client leaves an old growth legacy. Have any helpful links in mind?

Thank you for the fantastic site.

I once got lost in the Joyce Kilmer National Forest “virgin” lands. And was much impressed both by the trees and the condition of lostness.