Logging slows down forest recovery after burning

[Washington Hunter]

OSU Professors Tried to Squelch Study Questioning Post-Wildfire Logging

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CORVALLIS, Ore. — A group of professors at Oregon State's College of Forestry unsuccessfully tried to get the prestigious journal Science to hold off on publishing a study that concluded that leaving forests alone is the best way to help them recover from wildfires.

Editor Donald Kennedy, the former president of Stanford, said those who dispute the findings can respond to the study once it is published instead of using what he called censorship. The study was scheduled for today's edition of the journal.

An Oregon State graduate student, Daniel Donato, 29, led researchers in examining lands burned by the 2002 Biscuit wildfire in southwest Oregon, where the Bush administration and others at OSU had promoted logging as a means of restoring forests quickly.

Donato's team concluded logging slows forest recovery. They found that logging after the Biscuit fire destroyed seedlings and littered the ground with highly flammable tinder.

As is customary, Science's editors had independent scientists review Donato's research.

OSU's College of Forestry, which receives about 10 percent of its funding from a tax on logging, was immediately divided. Some said the request to delay publication raises questions about academic freedom.

"One has to notice and acknowledge the courage of a graduate student to do research and publish findings that run against the norm," said Kathleen Dean Moore, a distinguished professor of philosophy at OSU who teaches environmental ethics. "The university isn't about secrecy, it's about discussion."

Neither OSU President Ed Ray nor Provost Sabah Randhawa would discuss the situation.

College of Forestry dean Hal Salwasser, who has testified in favor of a congressional bill that would accelerate logging after fires, sent a memo to faculty questioning conclusions of the research paper, first released Jan. 5 in Science's online edition.

Earlier, John Sessions, a distinguished professor of forest engineering at OSU, and Professor Emeritus Michael Newton wrote a report suggesting aggressive logging would restore forests after the Biscuit blaze.

They were among nine OSU scientists and professors, plus the U.S. Forest Service, who asked Science editors to delay publication of the study until it addresses their criticisms. Alternately, they asked that their concerns be included in a letter accompanying the study.

They said the conclusions are premature and that the true test of efforts to restore forests will require decades.

They maintained the journal's process of peer review failed to detect flaws.

"There was no failure of peer review in this case," said Kennedy. "I'm sorry they don't like the outcome, but I think they have a misplaced case here."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Ithaca 37]

Yup, There's no doubt forests that have been burned recover faster if the burned trees are not logged, especially here in Idaho.

The trees that are left standing do provide some shade. Not a great deal, I'll admit, but it's better than nothing. That shade helps the soil retain water and helps protect the young seedlings and other growth from the burning sun.

That's a no-brainer and the group of professors who don't know that must be idiots.

Also, as those burned trees eventually fall over, they provide even more shade for young vegetation to grow in and as they rot they put nutrients back into the soil. They also provide shelter for some wildlife.

Taking out burned trees is detrimental to forest health.

 

[TheTone]

Well put Ithica. I think one thing you definitely see in a burned forest that is gone if it is salvage logged is the presence of snags. The importance of snags to a forest and its associtated wildlife are a subject that is being more understood all the time and is really interesting if you do some research on it.

 

[BigHornRam]

Most of the salvage logging I see around here leave some snags, remove some marketable timber, and tip over some of the more damaged timber and place it in a way to reduce errosion. If the salavage cut wasn't held up in court for 3 years by the tree huggers, there wouldn't be any damage to seedlings either.

What's funny is the zero cut/ anti logging crowd wants to speed up mother nature by using controlled burns to thin the forest, but then wants mother nature to take over after a fire so the forest can reestablish itself a little quicker. They forget that some of the public lands are there for man's needs as well. Most of them don't care for hunting either.

 

[1_pointer]

Good thing about the story is that in some areas we don't want the forest to come back very fast or much at all. In these areas the logging is a good way to accomplish this.

 

[BigHornRam]

Pointer,

Your showing off your hand again. That's why studies that are peer reviewed by "independent" thinkers such as yourself are a waste of time and money IMO.

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL Tyler...

It seems just a couple years ago, there was a study showing that the conifer forests were overtaking the region and killing off or inhibiting the growth of other native spieces (i.e. quaking aspen for example) and there is concerted effort by the FS to thin out areas of evergreens to promote the growth of shorter sun loving plants...

just a little fyi..

 

[1_pointer]

BHR- Care to elaborate?? I'm missing your point.

I do know that is some areas of sagebrush steppe having the sagebrush comeback as quick as possible is not desireable. The early successional plants in a mosaic pattern are needed by some wildlife species and many times the early to mid successional states produce more forage than a climax/historical states. That is my point. Management may want to retard the reestablishment of the climax/historical state of the forest, thus the logging could be a management tool to get there.

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer,

What are your thoughts on the QUALITY of early successional forage (nutritional value, etc.) versus climax/late seral stages?

Is there that much difference (in general) in over-all quality?

I'd think that early and very late successional stages may produce similar over-all quality???

Also, it seems to me that over-all plant diversity may be higher in late succession.

 

[1_pointer]

Buzz-

I'm assuming you're asking about sagebrush steppe or similar systems.

In regards to diversity, the mid seral states generally have the highest number of species. By their very nature, they will have some of the late and some of the early state species. It sorta depends on how you define diversity. In regards to growth forms, I'd agree that the later succesional states are more diverse.

In SS I'd say the quality is also greater during the early to mid states. By definition, sagebrush steppe is a co-dominance of sagebrush and bunchgrasses. Secondary seccession starts with the grasses and the forbs, which in general are better forage than sagebrush. Additionally, younger sagebrush have higher crude protein content than older shrubs, but they also have the higher toxin content. In small doses the protein content outweighs the negative impact of the toxins on most species.

As lots of research is showing, the importance of forbs is big, especially for wildlife. Forbs and the insects associated with them are highly important for pre-laying sage grouse (especially those high in calcium) and their chicks.

The take home message, IMO, is that we need mosaics of the different states.

I have little experience in wetter or more heavily forested systems, therefore these ideas may not work there.

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer,

Thanks for the info, much appreciated, and yes I was asking specifically about sagebrush types.

A couple more questions...if you dont mind.

What plants typically dominate a late succession sagebrush habitat-type...other than the obvious like sagebrush? From just simple observation, I'd say its primarily grasses, and in particular non-natives in many areas???

Also, in regard to historic amounts of early, mid and late successional stages. I would think that historically, fire was pretty common and frequent in sage types.

Assuming thats basically true, wouldnt it be fair to assume that historically there was more early-mid successional stages of sagebrush types than the climax state?

I'm thinking we may currently have way, way, way more old, decedant stands of sagebrush than ever before.

Thoughts?

 

[1_pointer]

Typically sagebrush steppe is dominated by perennial bunchgrasses and sagebrush. Non-natives can be a major component, especially if seeding with crested wheatgrass has occurred anytime in the past.

MFRI is something that is harder to pin down. Sagebrush must recolonize an area from seed, so after a fire it may take a LONG time for sagebrush to reassert it's dominance. Likewise, spraying sagebrush to remove it has a project life of about 20 yrs, as a general rule of thumb. Depending on site, the MFRI is 25-100 years. So, fires weren't as frequent as some would guess, but the early, herbaceous states are very persistent. Yes, historically there was better mix of the early-mid stages than what we have now in many areas. In fact, I spent all of yesterday writing a NEPA document to thin sagebrush on a section with a tractor for this very reason.

Many areas free of disturbance and poor past grazing practices are typified by even aged stands of old, decadant sagebrush. There are lots of ways to reverse this, just depends on what you want to get and how you want to get there.

 

[BigHornRam]

"Good thing about the story is that in some areas we don't want the forest to come back very fast or much at all. In these areas the logging is a good way to accomplish this."

Pointer,

Do you really believe this? Do you believe this article is not at all biased? Is it possible that the OSU faculity is trying to get the the study corrected properly before the embarising piece of crap get's published? Heck if an uneducated moron like me can find obvious flaws in it without even reading it, what good was the the "peer review" on it?

Remember the Utah State "Wolf Study" a few years back? Turned out to be a class discussion that got leaked to the press which wrote it up as a "study". If this is the kind of "research" that goes on at Universities today then there's no reason to waste our money funding them is there?

 

[MarvB]

Also, it seems to me that over-all plant diversity may be higher in late succession.

I have little experience in wetter or more heavily forested systems, therefore these ideas may not work there.

Tyler, for what (my opinion) it's worth, I'd have to agree with both of you statements above. In regards to open/rangeland vege I would definitely think that diversity and a subsequent drop-off in nutritional value would go hand-in-hand with maturity. Do you think though, as I believe Buzz asked, that early and very late stages produce similar nutritional quality? I always assumed that young range succession species generally had much more forage value and to be more palatable than climax specie types but maybe I'm missing the point of his question.

The dynamics of "most" timber stands (esp. old growth fir and redwood) are quite different out here in the wetter climes. As the canopy becomes fully closed the floor beneath can become pretty mundane in regards to species diversity of both flora and fauna.

 

[1_pointer]

Do you really believe this? Do you believe this article is not at all biased? Is it possible that the OSU faculity is trying to get the the study corrected properly before the embarising piece of crap get's published? Heck if an uneducated moron like me can find obvious flaws in it without even reading it, what good was the the "peer review" on it?

Or is it possible that the OSU forestry professors are worried about future funding. I did read the part where 10% of their budget comes from. I haven't read the paper, just the conclusions in a newspaper article. Therefore I won't comment on the quality of the science. I will say that even the most rigorous of experiments can produce results that are unpopular/unwanted and even those that go against common sense. Science is a process and part of the process is putting your findings out there for scrutiny. Part of that scrutiny can and should be the replication of the project as close as possible to see if the results were due to more than chance. Do you understand that?

I remember the USU wolf thing. It was never touted as 'research' on campus, only in the paper. Maybe you'll notice that project didn't make it to any respected peer review journals. So, could it be a case of a newspaper blowing something out of proportion?

Are you against all research or just that which doesn't mesh perfectly with your world view?

 

[1_pointer]

Marv and Buzz- Here's a few pictures to help illustrate the points I was trying to make.

These two pictures show areas with very similar potential plant communities. This one was burnt the fall before the picture was taken.

This one is a mature stand of the same community.

The amount of biomass is higher in the second, but there is more edible biomass in the first. Quality is probably greater in the first as well.

This is an attempt to reduce the brush and promote the herbaceous species, except that a Lawson pasture aerator was used and not a fire. This phots is two years after treatment and towards the end of the growing season.

The mosaic pattern makes for some pretty good critter habitat!

 

[TheTone]

Nice pictures 1 Pointer. I'm a big fan of shrub steppe and unfortunately I live in just steppe with some grading into meadow steppe (or what is left of it anyways). Other than the Lupinus sp. in the first picture, what is the other herbaceous component that is being fairly well represented their? It seems fairly promenant on the left side of the picture in the lower third; I can't really make out what it is.

 

[BigHornRam]

Pointer,

My wife works in "science" so I have a pretty good idea of what goes on. 9 out of 10 people she works with are flaming libs who blame Bush for any and everything wrong in the world. If they spent half as much time working as they do whinning about Bush they might actually get something accomplished. You guy's need to get over it. He's president. Work on next election. Quit whinning about the last two.

 

[JoseCuervo]

BHR,
Why don't you keep the f*ck shut up and let people who know the subject educate people like yourself. You add nothing to this thread.

 

[BigHornRam]

Jose,

Did you even read the original post and accompaning article? Just another Bush bash thread and New York Times caliber newspaper article so KMFA. That it's evolved into a nice chat about sage brush habitat is fine, so excuse me for bringing it back on topic. Carry on pointer.