Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2018 - 06:09pm PT
|
I think others have touched on the idea that forest density is a big part of the problem (if there even is a problem).
For example, a good friend who's the biologist for the southern CA Edison property up around Shaver and Huntington lakes told me about the data they have. (I'm going to make up the numbers, because I don't remember them, just to explain the idea)
There are currently 100 trees per acre and the drought and beetles have killed 60 trees per acre. However, the historical density was around 40 trees per acre. In other words, the forest is self regulating and returning closer to the natural carrying capacity.
I don't think the die offs are a very big deal, and from an ecological point of view it's fun to go to the mountains and watch them change. Maybe the change is for the better since there are too many trees.
On a side note, published studies show that snags (standing dead trees) do not significantly increase wildfire severity or frequency.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2018 - 06:32pm PT
|
On a side note, published studies show that snags (standing dead trees) do not significantly increase wildfire severity or frequency.
I believe they were talking about dead trees with no needles and few branches left on them. Trees that have recently died or are near dying are highly flammable.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2018 - 08:53pm PT
|
That's what I thought too, John, but when I read the paper they didn't really distinguish between dead trees with or without needles. They did mention that the oils in living trees burn really hot and longer. Maybe dead needles burn more easily and living needles burn hotter so it's a wash? That's kinda what I gathered from it but I should read it again to double check.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2018 - 09:27pm PT
|
Needles tend to fall off within one year of a tree dying. Thats why many areas in the Sierra don't look as bad as they first did when trees first started dying, because dead snags are harder to see then a tree with dead needles on it. My guess is that they are talking about dead snags, rather then dead trees with needles on them. If you look at some of the videos about how quickly and how hot a dead christmas tree burns versus one that is watered or fresh, then you can see the difference. And if you think about how much heat it takes to torch a piece of wood, verses a dead branch with needles on it, then you could see that a dead or dying tree that still has its needles is much more dangerous then a dead snag with no needles and fewer branches. I believe that the forest has been much more dangerous during the first years of the die off, and if we come out of the drought, then each year that we are out, and fewer trees die from the beetle infection, then the trees that are already dead become less dangerous each year. As their needles and branches fall off.
What I wonder is how well the trees would do to survive this year, if we go back into drought. After lasts years record wet year.
I do agree that our forests are overgrown. But the the die off from the beetles is in my opinion making the forest very dangerous as I believe it causes fires to be larger and to burn and kill everything, rather then skip around and not kill larger trees, and not scorch the earth. The fire in Yellowstone is a good example of what happens when you have drought and a die off of trees. Some areas were completely torched and the soil was sterilized, making regrowth happen a lot slower.
thats just my opinion. I am not an expert, though over the years in Yosemite I was friends with a few.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!