You must log in or register to comment.

dilletaunty t1_j1p0y3o wrote

Isn’t it kind of well known that breaks in tree cover/tree fall increases diversity? I think the main argument against logging is that it tends to involve clear cutting, mono crops, and other issues resulting from poor management.

Further reading recommendations would be greatly appreciated.


lumberjack_jeff t1_j1p1hfe wrote

Yes. A varied canopy is important for habitat. The biggest problem from logging in temperate forests is road erosion into streams from overuse.


h3lblad3 t1_j1q9w47 wrote

My takeaway from this is that more environments need beavers reintroduced and not that more environs need logged.


kslusherplantman t1_j1qgzo9 wrote

This is a totally important point.

Could you imagine what this continent looked like before all the massive trapping that happened? Beavers were one of the most trapped animals.

Meaning there had to be millions of beaver ponds across Canada, the US, and into Mexico holding water and preventing erosion.


Leemcardhold t1_j1r8ham wrote

It was mostly swamp


[deleted] t1_j1rir5x wrote

Well maybe it should be mostly swamp


rata_thE_RATa t1_j1rtdzh wrote

Maybe after we kill off biting mosquitos.


[deleted] t1_j1rxbte wrote

They're not that bad. They're better than humans


Lathael t1_j1s32vg wrote

You want to check your facts again. Mosquitos are overwhelmingly the number 1 cause of death by an animal, estimated at 1,000,000 deaths annually. Humanity is closer to 500k by best estimates. (has multiple sources.)


kslusherplantman t1_j1rvm1n wrote

You’ve never seen a beaver pond if you equate them with “swamp”


Leemcardhold t1_j1rycjv wrote

You’ve never seen a beaver pond if you don’t equate the extended flooded area beyond the pond to a swamp, or ok, a wet meadow.


kslusherplantman t1_j1ryp9q wrote

I’ve seen more beaver ponds that you ever will.

I live in the backcountry. In areas with MANY reintroduced beavers.

And just so you know, not everywhere (and many places I’ve seen) when they dam a river, there ARENT extended meadows (swamps as you call them)

You are assuming it’s always like that, which very much shows how few beaver ponds you have seen


Leemcardhold t1_j1sbyw6 wrote

Ha, I had the same thought. I’ve worked on numerous beaver projects and have worked/studied forestry and wildlife for over a decade.

Much of the eastern US seaboard was described as huge swamps by European settlers. It was the destruction of the beaver and dams that dried out the ‘swamps’. When I say ‘swamp’ I mean wet meadows, swamps, forested wetlands. Washington DC was famously a ‘swamp’ before it was drained. Anytime a beaver dams water, the water will spread. The extent varies wildly.


Sylux444 t1_j1qmlqt wrote

What this chart says : apples are red, apples are sweet, money is sweet. Therefore apples are money


Organic-Idiocy t1_j1p1t8k wrote

The roads are also a problem no matter what you do


Creative_soja OP t1_j1p22wy wrote

True. Except for mud trails, any paved road eventually divides the forest and somehow irreversibly damages the ecosystem.


Gastronomicus t1_j1py8yw wrote

> Except for mud trails, any paved road eventually divides the forest and somehow irreversibly damages the ecosystem.

Not sure what you mean by "mud trails", but depending on use and location, unpaved roads can experience significant problems with erosion and soil compaction.


Greypilgrem t1_j1ps2c4 wrote

False. Outsloping roads, frequent surface drainage structures, and hydrologically disconnecting the surface flows from streams are an immense improvement.


Gastronomicus t1_j1q8p6n wrote

This is harm reduction, not harm elimination. Their comment was very clear that roads are a problem irrespective of what measures are taken to protect the landscape.


Organic-Idiocy t1_j1q2p1k wrote

That doesn't make them not a problem. And all that chemical runoff isn't peachy either


Greypilgrem t1_j1q70xo wrote

It significantly reduces the erosion, sedimentation, and pollution into waters. Your comment offers a naive simple perspective. Of course, the forest would be better off if we became extinct, but we havent done that yet. Should rural properties only use helicopters to travel? Should we only use plastics for furniture? Educate yourself. The Rural Roads Handbook offers some insight:


Organic-Idiocy t1_j1q9d0i wrote

Harm mitigation is not the same as lack of harm.

Educate yourself on simple logic and human communication friend. You can argue that logging is a necessity and better than alternatives while still recognizing that there are many aspects of it which are harmful to the environment.

I eat meat and I can argue that eating chicken is better for the environment than eating beef, but it's still problematic.

>Should rural properties only use helicopters to travel

Rural properties should be largely unsubsidized. The cities largely pay for all those roads, communication services, trash, water, utilities, etc, because some people like the lifestyle. I didn't grow up in a big city. I know that most small town folk are NOT engaged in farming/logging/mining. They can stay there all they want but I'm sick of paying for them to live unsustainably.


Greypilgrem t1_j1qbo3v wrote

My point is that rural roads aren't going anywhere. Therefore, they should be constructed and maintained appropriately. I agree, they are a problem, but we can limit the impact. Also, most rural areas are unincorporated.


Gastronomicus t1_j1q8tqb wrote

You're missing the point. "Reduces" isn't the same as "eliminates". Regardless of benefits and challenges, roads are problematic and that is their point.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1p1b0a wrote

True. But this study is one of the first to extensively document, through field measurements, the impacts on biodiversity in a logged and in an unlogged forest within the same geographical region.


Wjbskinsfan t1_j1p1y3e wrote

I studied Wood Science and Technology in college and learned this almost 15 years ago.


Gastronomicus t1_j1pxzbb wrote

> Isn’t it kind of well known that breaks in tree cover/tree fall increases diversity?

This is the case in boreal and temperate forests. I'm not sure if it is as relevant for tropical forests that already display high diversity (though likely to some extent). Article is behind a paywall so I couldn't read it any further.


dilletaunty t1_j1qzfsm wrote

That caveat totally makes sense to me, thanks for bringing it up.

To talk it through: The benefit from tree fall seems to be a mix of increased light penetrating to the forest floor + detrivory & soil buildup from the fallen trees (which we can ignore due to the logging). The documentaries I’ve seen on rainforests emphasize how the ecosystem is layered among the canopy with many epiphytic plant species and animals adapted to life off the ground. So the increased light penetration may not balance out the loss in diversity among life that depends on adult trees. It probably depends on the relative balance/rarity among the different layers, and I don’t know enough to guess on where an appropriate balance is.


cistacea t1_j1qiluq wrote

, rainforest a whole different animal yeah exactly


cistacea t1_j1qijcx wrote

Watching the YouTube video "era of megafires", the long one, will totally open your eyes about why West Coast forests are too thick and they need to be thinner


ShittyDuckFace t1_j1r9ja2 wrote

Agreed. In addition, I also wonder if some research on logging, similar to milk, are funded by people who are interested in a specific result.

But at the end of the day, logging - like milk - is about research-based management and moderation.


dilletaunty t1_j1s16f1 wrote

I’m sure research by logging companies is pretty dubious. I think the forest service or other publications from government entities may be more fair, as they a) have access to info on a wider variety of data, b) get money from flat rent rather than extractable value and c) politically are interested in balancing a variety of human activities which include wildlife diversity/appeal.

But like who knows tbh


ShittyDuckFace t1_j1sgpc3 wrote

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at but I don't know what research has been done by logging companies, so I didn't want to say anything definite.


U_Sam t1_j1s3pxz wrote

Learned in my wildlife management class in university this semester that biodiversity in mammals actually increases with urbanisation. That being said I hate urbanisation.


dilletaunty t1_j1s45x6 wrote

Is that a flat biodiversity of mammals or a biodiversity of local mammals? I can understand if it increases from released pets or specifically animals good at exploiting human systems but otherwise that’s just… hella counterintuitive


U_Sam t1_j1s53xc wrote

The way my professor (phd in wildlife ecology) phrased it made it seem to be flat. Red fox do particularly well in urban environments. One of our projects was to create a hypothetical management plan for a forested area for a specific species and she stated that for red fox, increased urbanisation would highly benefit them.


SomeDudeFromKentucky t1_j1sggqx wrote

Another important factor is that old growth forests absorb far more CO2 a tree, say 4 times the size of another tree absorbs >4x the carbon.


killawhipboy t1_j1p3003 wrote

Clear cutting is actually a good method of logging. It allows the forest to basically start anew and grow in stages again. Selective cutting is the worst practice for logging. Obviously doing the entire forest isn't good but when done in sections it is positive. A


ltethe t1_j1p4ppn wrote

I don’t necessarily not believe you, but citations would be appreciated.


dilletaunty t1_j1p3y8w wrote

Why is a fresh start better than fewer trees? Due to the road/transportation issues or competition with well established plants?


shipsAreWeird123 t1_j1pfav5 wrote

I'm not the poster you were responding to, but my guess is that when you clear cut you're doing something more close to primary succession.

Because nothing is established yet, there might be an opportunity for some bigger species to get established, whereas if you cut down the old growth, the shorter canopies can block sunlight to the ground and you might never get the big trees.

After guessing I did some googling

Anti-clear cutting

"Pro" clear cutting

Honestly I should have googled before trying to come up with an explanation. There is very little information on the internet in favor of clear cutting. Though I do think the article does a good job of explaining why there are diminishing returns for selective cuts.


azbod2 t1_j1pvqcd wrote

as an owner of some woodland my opinion is this, whilst limited low volume wood harvesting is hard to notice or impact the eco system the continual human use of the wood has many impacts. We make trails, we scuff up the leaf litter, we scare away animals, we make chages for commercial reasons, we selectivly harvest not knowing the consequences.

If we leave it alone and then clear cut and leave again, the area has a long amount of time without disruption to regrow, like a forest fire or something, it seems devestating but the seed bank in the soil will have plenty of opportunity to sort itself out out.

when our neighbour made a clearing, we as aging hippies where shocked and dismayed, over the years his clearing has become a haven for wild life and a genuinely arttractive place for us as well as wildlife, in contrast our patch of overgrown woodland is dark dingy, has little ground cover or fodder for animals and has less biodiversity etc. Now we have a variety of different bits of woodland in out patch so its not an issue but the vibrancy and versitilty of life is amazing and shouldnt be taken for granted.

In many ways our constant low impact "meddling" has done a worse job than actually leaving it to its own devices, clear cutting or not.

Wood land has evolved over millions of years and life is just waiting for the chance to spring up anew and natural events, fires, storms, roaming larger animals etc will naturally clear and kill some of the larger trees that have over shadowed the smaller ones.

The act of driving machinery over the land and even well used foot paths is quite a destructive to the soil and delicate balance of funghi and leaf litter, moss and smaller plants.

So its not that the earth and its plants and animals are not resilient to damage but that we constantly meddle without a long term view. Pretty much every city will be overgrown quite swiftly in earth time if the humasns went away. Its our constant adjusting that can lead to good vs bad outcomes.

Dont get me wrong, i believe that with the right attitude we can be in harmony with nature and makes theings "better" but its just a shame that we dont always do that.


Wolfenjew t1_j1qevwu wrote

The thing is though that was likely a small area that was clear cut. Logging operations that clear cut can take hundreds of acres, and I wouldn't be surprised if they reached the thousands.


Gastronomicus t1_j1pzjct wrote

> Clear cutting is actually a good method of logging

You're right - it's a fantastic method of logging. It's not however an ideal method of forest management for diversity and ecosystem services. It mimics large scale disturbance events (e.g. fire, major windthrows) in some ways (large scale tree removal).

However, it is also significantly different than those events in that it removes more of the larger biomass from the landscape (fires tend to burn off only fine fuels), reducing the organic materials left on site. It also removes local seed sources, forcing replanting as the only option for regrowth in the short-term.

Additionally, clear cutting involves the use of machinery that can compact and damage the soil, often by design. Remaining biomass is moved into piles and the soil surface is scrapped into windrows to facilitate growth of new seedlings. This continued removal of organic materials and soil damage can lead to longer-term depletion of organic matter and nutrients from soils and compaction, affecting its hydraulic properties and capacity for carbon storage and long-term productivity.

These areas are then replanted as a monoculture and typically sprayed with herbicides to reduce competition. While it's often the case that these forests tend to regenerate in even-aged patches dominated by one species, this only exacerbates this effect and reduces understorey diversity as well.

Clear-cutting isn't all bad, but it certainly isn't a "good" method of silviculture from an ecological perspective. Many countries having been shifting to a model that is closer to a partial-harvest, with the intent of increasing diversity on the landscape, which is demonstrated to improve forest ecosystem resilience to disturbance and climate change.


seriousofficialname t1_j1p5p77 wrote

Is it possible there's less diversity in unlogged forests in Malaysian Borneo because there's very very little area overall left in Malaysian Borneo that's unlogged compared to area that's been logged already?

According to this map only a tiny tiny percentage of forest area in Malaysian Borneo is actually unlogged. There is a clear line between the Malaysian territory and the Indonesian territory that is basically coincident with the border between logged and unlogged area on the island, and what's left unlogged in the Malaysian forests are tiny isolated vanishing patches that are disjoined from the rest of the forest in the Indonesian area ... so maybe it's no wonder if the number of species in these areas is a bit smaller at this point. And a comparison to the forests in the Indonesian area of Borneo and to other forests around the world is certainly needed.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1p5zxs wrote

That is a good question. As per my understanding, the researchers selected a logged area and adjoining unlogged area within the same forest. So, it is difficult to say how the impacts of logging one section affect the biodiversity of the unlogged section.


nanoatzin t1_j1qpyz5 wrote

Scientist: “clear cutting trees good for climate change and wildlife diversity”.

> Wildfires, logging turn protected forests into carbon emitters -report

I think we can safely say that if a toilet paper company can give a 65 year old semi-retired scientist $5 million to conduct research explains how “clear cutting old growth forest is a good thing”, then we would expect that scientist to study how wildlife diversity increases after wildlife migrated from the logged area from the unlogged area, with a bonus that toilet paper is a “carbon sink”, therefore “proving” the claim that global desertification by clear cutting all of the trees is the solution to climate change and habitat loss.

Problem: trees are where quite a bit of our oxygen comes from, most of the wildlife is now gone, so flushing all of our trees down the toilet may not be the best way to remove carbon from the atmosphere and improve the environment.

The fossil fuel industry has shown us how to conduct this kind of fraudulent scientific research for over half a century by making old scientists wealthy.


CBXER t1_j1qv5pj wrote

Riding offroad in British Columbia in the heatwaves there is a very noticeable temperature rise in clearcuts. Zero shade, species are going extinct as tematures rise. This report is creative fiction.


nanoatzin t1_j1r69c0 wrote

Obviously so. Trees evaporate hundreds of gallons of water each day into the atmosphere.


Leemcardhold t1_j1r946v wrote

Immature trees grow faster then mature trees locking in more carbon. Good for climate change. Immature trees offer more food for wildlife, buds are reachable, etc. You can only grow immature trees by creating space by cutting mature trees.

It’s not a conspiracy by paper companies it’s standard knowledge in forestry/environmental science.


seriousofficialname t1_j1p7822 wrote

And I wonder if some of the species in the unlogged forests can't be found in the logged forests.

That would certainly complicate the idea of logging unlogged forests in order to promote diversity.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1p7n1q wrote

It is definitely true for insects and other earth species. And that is a limitation of such studies. For birds and mammals, it is difficult to validate with one study.


seriousofficialname t1_j1p8khw wrote

Maybe the relatively recent logging of the vast majority of Malaysian Borneo's forests might have pushed some species that depend on unlogged ecosystem deeper inland where old forests remain. The old growth forests left in Malaysian Borneo are really the periphery of unlogged forests in Borneo at this point.

I'm still surprised by the results of the study though. I normally think of ecological transition zones as being more diverse.


Cryptid_Chaser t1_j1p8jvd wrote

It’s almost certainly true that at least one species can only thrive in those unlogged spaces, even if a lot of other species can thrive in the second-growth forest.


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_j1plaah wrote

It looks like most of the unlogged forest is at much higher elevations, too, which would naturally affect biodiversity


AnOrneryOrca t1_j1p7f0m wrote

I wonder whether this accounts for biodiversity that isn't moving around - ex. Fungi and other life that depends on the original ecosystem but isn't easy to count due to where it lives, being microscopic, etc. How much of that life is needed to maintain the original biodiversity and is then replaced by species that wouldn't otherwise be present in the pre-logging ecosystem?

Also is biodiversity the only key metric here, and how is say carbon capture / oxygen emissions impacted?

Either way I know there's an argument for limited logging - limited being the key word.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1p7zt0 wrote

Yes. Only limited logging may have some macro level benefits for the short term.

You are absolutely correct to point out that fungi and microorganism may be difficult to count. So, we dont know whether limited logging will continue to produce the same benefits in the long-term, meaning over centuries, as compared to the old growth.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1p01uh wrote

The author reviewed the orignal study that found that "logged tropical forests as fully functional and highly diverse ecosystems. Given their vast extent, logged forests have a crucial role in conserving tropical biodiversity and helping to mitigate climate change"

The major problem with the logged forests’ conservation potential is "hindered by an abundant illegal timber trade, high hunting pressures and a scarcity of forest-management plans".

Link to the original study (open access):


BamBamCam t1_j1p8vur wrote

Would it be a fair assumption to implement regulations for more logging. In turn would decrease the amount of illegal logging? Helping to mitigate some of the conservation issues creating scarcity.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1p9xsl wrote

Yes. This is one of the recommendations. It is not logging but unmanaged and uncontrollable logging that is the problem.


Cryptid_Chaser t1_j1p4ebh wrote

Can’t read behind the paywall.

My question is this: I thought no old growth forests were left, like, anywhere. So is the area being studied large enough to actually draw conclusions about large-scale forest management? Or is it more of a curiosity study based off of a single square acre?


Creative_soja OP t1_j1p5b1a wrote

Oh sorry. I am using my university network with free access, so I didn't realize that.

From the professional summary of the study:

Researchers "put a huge amount of work into calculating the number of individuals for 144 bird species and 104 mammalian species. They did this in adjacent areas of undisturbed and logged forest in Malaysian Borneo. At 882 locations, the authors installed camera traps — devices that automatically take pictures when animals pass by. In addition, Malhi and colleagues captured small mammals at 1,488 positions; installed bat traps at 336 sites; and counted birds at 356 locations."

"Surprisingly, the logged sites had a greater number of speciea than the unlogged sites. For example, logged forests had more species of bird that eat insects or that eat plant material such as fruit and nectar than did the unlogged forests. The authors estimated energy flows through food consumption, and found higher values for logged forests than for unlogged ones. Perhaps logging opens up extra environmental niches that help to boost the forest ecosystem."

So, it seems pretty extensive. I have added the link to the original study.


Cryptid_Chaser t1_j1p84ue wrote

Thanks for the link! Open access FTW!!

Looks like the relevant part from the methodology is: >“in four old-growth forest 1-ha plots in the Maliau Basin Conservation Area (two plots, 4 years of data) and Danum Valley Conservation Area (two plots, 2 years of data)14,16, and one 0.36-ha mature oil palm plot”

So not very large. That’s disappointing, really. I wish they had been in miles-long tracts.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1paast wrote

I agree but it was only research. For them, documenting the biodiversity of a small plot was challenging in itself. Measuring miles of tracts is nearly impossible for a single study. I support huge government efforts to monitor the biodiversity of an entire ecosystem onna regular basis.


Cryptid_Chaser t1_j1pc5gk wrote

True. I’d hate to research an area even that big and try to be comprehensive. And they tracked a lot of different species. No doubt it was a complex project.

I just always think about what the takeaways might be. And I don’t want the takeaway to be “oh let’s log ALL the forests, since we value having a lot of species, so forget about that one frog that only grows here.” If we had even 50/50 old growth and second growth, then it wouldn’t feel so precarious.


Darwins_Dog t1_j1pvbi7 wrote

Given the scope if what they were measuring, this is huge. More or bigger sites would have taken an army to process the images and check all the traps.


Greypilgrem t1_j1pvc4q wrote

In an ideal world sure. However, that would be an unimaginable amount of field work and data analysis. Imagine how many photos are taken by motion activated cameras when the wind blows, not to mention changing out the batteries.


Gastronomicus t1_j1q0bxr wrote

> I thought no old growth forests were left, like, anywhere

There are large-swaths of primary growth in many tropical regions and parts of the boreal/taiga forests. There are small pockets of primary forest in temperate forest regions, but since these have been the main areas of human expansion over the past 10000 years they have been the most disturbed.


Kryosite t1_j1p4y3l wrote

Pretty sure they haven't managed to clear the whole Amazon yet


Cryptid_Chaser t1_j1p8nm8 wrote

And I hope “the lungs of the world” are able to be preserved. It seems every day there’s bad news about it.


Kryosite t1_j1p8ubw wrote

I mean, don't get me wrong, they're doing their best, the Amazon is just really big, so they haven't finished yet.


Rumpthrust t1_j1pavre wrote

Brought to you by Georgia Pacific and Wayerhaeuser!


novamber t1_j1p7l2g wrote

Yeah, it’s totally safe to smoke cigarettes. Says scientific report funded by the tobacco industry.


InsaneFerrit666 t1_j1psga8 wrote

Paywall can eat it. What do you wanna bet this study was paid for by a certain organization that may, or may not have an interest in…further logging? Here in North America we’ve created super highways for predators, puts some pretty undue pressure on our native prey animals and it’s noticeable. I do support logging as well as its well managed and properly regulated, but we could leave the last old growth forests alone…we’re just greedy people.


Kindness_3024 t1_j1prmlu wrote

Thank God humans arrived to save the forest and create biodiversity because nature just can't make it without us.


Leemcardhold t1_j1r9zht wrote

After hundreds of years of poor forest management, this actually is the case in some areas.


Greypilgrem t1_j1puafp wrote

Fauna follow disturbance, to some degree, because new resources are more easily accessed. However, this documented presence is a moment in time. Invasive plant species often follow logging. I wonder what the diversity would be after 5 years or 10. If land management has over valued fire prevention, some amount of clearing could be beneficial. When logging is deemed beneficial, it makes one question the motive of the study.


Leemcardhold t1_j1r9udm wrote

Logging to a certain extent is beneficial. Forests used to be disturbed by fires, storms, and animals. Disturbance creates immature vegetation, which increases biodiversity. Now the primary disturbance is logging.


cestboncher t1_j1pvj0p wrote

I can't access the link, but I gotta say biodiversity isn't the be-all end-all in conservation. You have to consider species composition too. There are many species that require old-growth forest or forest interiors away from edge habitat that suffer from logging, even if overall biodiversity increases. Often those species are already imperiled due to the modern scarcity of undisturbed forest.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1qb1x2 wrote

Good point about spcies composition. Different ecosystems support different set of species. We cannot say for sure that one composition is superior to another.


lubacrisp t1_j1qk0o6 wrote

Oh look, succession, something we've understood pretty well for a decent amount of time now


GDPisnotsustainable t1_j1qor5z wrote

The soil should be left intact. A process called scarification was adopted thinking new trees would do better with tilled soil. silviculture donts Soil is also known as one of the best carbon repositories - and the act of tilling it releases carbon and kills the microbes responsible.


TheRealMJLantz t1_j1r8q8d wrote

Ahh yes, an article geared at making logging seem “ethical.” The logging lobbyists are gonna love this one.


thebraddestbrad t1_j1rt6h2 wrote

I'm gonna need to see who funded this research


Latter-Signal-4698 t1_j1samnw wrote

This is not surprising and has been known, but society is just finally catching up with the science.


Splenda t1_j1uy2d6 wrote

>most tropical timber is produced by felling only a limited number of trees in a piece of forest, leaving the structure of the forest mostly intact.

Note: this study pertains only to selectively logged, managed tropical forests...not clear-cut forests, and certainly not tropical forests replaced with pastures and plantations.


ahfoo t1_j1zubme wrote

Yeah, I went to southern Yunnan in China in the early 90s. They had wiped out hundreds of thousands of acres of rainforest clearcutting it "for progress" and "modernization" there was nothing left. The hills were just covered in mud. The rivers were filled with mud, everywhere was nothing but mud and massive erosion.

One little tiny section had been left, perhaps a few thousand acres. You could pay to go in there and spend the night in a tree house to see all the animals that had fled from the deforested area that were fed bales of hay in order to collect a few bucks from the tourists. There was all sorts of wildlife diversity in that little sliver that was left. You could cynically claim that this was good for diversity.

In fact, it was quite sad. The whole thing was depressing.


AutoModerator t1_j1p005z wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


traypo t1_j1pzi1p wrote

Pay wall to access the journal doesn’t help the dialogue. We are arrogant thinking we have informed insight to forest health without understanding microbiome. Typical biased data and design when anything is tied to industry, especially the Timber Industry. There is more life and biomass microscopically than macroscopic. The more we look, the greater the complexity of microbial processes. The rubisco gene’s unparalleled sequestration of atmospheric carbon is a no- dah. More sun=more foliar growth = more obvious data to capture. The rest of the story includes integral unknowns. Extrapolation is suggestive at best.


Haunting-Tale-817 t1_j1qcnl1 wrote

Back in the ‘80s I was camping in the lower Adirondacks (somewhere N of Amsterdam, NY if I remember right). Anyway, low enough so that there was plenty of deciduous growth. It was almost impossible for dead trees to hit the ground due to overgrowth in the forest. Just a lot of dead trees leaning on live ones starving the ground of sunlight. Typical fauna was practically nonexistent compared to logged areas of the Catskills I frequented. Of course, the Catskills spots weren’t even close to being clear cut.


cistacea t1_j1qie90 wrote

Grew up in a logging family and one of the biggest frustrations that my dad always had was environmentalists kind of having theories about the way that forests work, but not really any having any firsthand knowledge due not really having spent significant time in forests. I'm glad that some research, finally, is bearing out some of the wisdom that people who work in forests have had for a long time


Leemcardhold t1_j1ra6q0 wrote

Yup, has anyone ever met a forester who was completely anti-logging? Nope. Because foresters and some loggers know how the forest works.


cistacea t1_j1rbhsc wrote

Literally decades of my dad and other older lumberjacks telling me about how the West Coast forests used to regularly burn, and forest fire prevention efforts were actually making the forest fires worse, but my mom's family, who are all very well educated and environmentally conscious laughing them all off as uneducated idiot who just want to make a buck from strip mining the Earth. And then, everybody started learning from Dr Paul hesberg about the era of megafires which completely validated everything that my dad's family had always been said.


hammyFbaby t1_j1qkqfu wrote

Anybody remember the abundance of natural pheasants in Ohio when their was more deforestation and fields? Now pheasant hunters have to release their own birds (which seems so dumb to hunt a half domesticated animal haha)


YawnTractor_1756 t1_j1s22f9 wrote

I hope more important (in my opinion) issues of overlogging, overfishing and overfarming get much more attention in the future than the overhyped co2 issue.


AnomynousHero t1_j1s7jyv wrote

Oh great the evidence is behind a paywall.


Creative_soja OP t1_j1s92kr wrote

Please check my explanation with the link to the original article.


Tall_Measurement436 t1_j1rbdkl wrote

I mean, I feel like this is common sense. Logging isn’t a bad thing. It’s necessary and beneficial.


lastfall99 t1_j1pd8o0 wrote

Why didn't you care otherwise?


crabcakesandbeer t1_j1pcufw wrote

The logging industry has always been beneficial for well managed forests. It’s the Smokey Bear, wilderness policies which have been bad for forests.


Kindness_3024 t1_j1pro0i wrote

No scientific proof of this whatsoever. None.


crabcakesandbeer t1_j1puusr wrote

Smokey Bear leads to overgrown forests, and devastating wildfires.

Thinning the forests allows for low level natural fires that don’t turn into large conflagrations.

That’s why the forest service has controlled burns.

That’s science.


Greypilgrem t1_j1pukei wrote

Comparing logging to absolute fire prevention, is like comparing a spider bite to a snake bite. Allowing forest to undergo their natural successional processes is ideal, and that includes fire.


azbod2 t1_j1puflz wrote

this is well known in uk as pretty much all the forests have been managed for millenia and there are species that need coppiced woodland etc. Also it makes sense that we need to sequester carbon by growing wood and then not burning it or letting it decay but using more wooden furniture and implements.

Owning some woodland in our family it has been counter injtuitive the whole chopping trees thing. The woods have been choked by old and overgrown trees, leeding to far less productivity and less species diversity. The lack of larger animals to create and maintain clearings and clear the ground cover leads to pretty barren areas. We as good curators of the land have to mimic the effects of the larger animals that we removed.

As the plastic and fossil fuels have led to vast changes in how we utilise land, many areas are not very productive anymore. Its not so much that land left to go wild isnt a good thing but that we have been so efficent at removing the larger animals that its not truly a wild enviroment any more. Its a bit of a barren wasteland on the edge on an industrialised zone.

For example the elephants are considered important to maintianing certain habitats in africa and wolves vs deer have proven interesting in maintaining American parks.

the Amazon has evidence that a much larger population existed there and could be considered an overgrown market garden.

The more we look into our impact and interelationship with nature its clear to me that the concept of the "garden" of eden is profound. There ARE ways that human intervention can be beneficial for US AND THE PLANET and all its inhabitants. Its a shame that we are not always good at doing what is best for us even, money has a way of doing things for expediency that is somewhat short sighted. Capitalism will only really work for all if we put a greater cost/benefit on all of life and not just the limited things that are the most efficient to exploit.


trustych0rds t1_j1p8ar6 wrote

Its funny how many people dont believe this because it doesnt fit their opinions.


Kindness_3024 t1_j1prpir wrote

What a remarkable moment of self-clarity. Good for you.