Use of wood chips in a forest.
Davo
pine, beech, and red oak. It has not been managed or cared for, and I
would like to spend my latter years improving the stand for the long
term.
This is not strictly for timber production. My wish is to improve the
natural balance of the forest, if that is possible.
To gradually remove some of the less desirable trees, I was
considering chipping many of them and letting the chips fall where
they may.
I would appreciate some commentary and advice from the knowledgeable
members of this group regarding this option.
Thank you to all.
mhagen
Frankly, I don't see a problem if you can physically get a chipper out
in the brush. Was that what you were thinking of? In certain unusual
situations, leaving slash on the ground may be undesirable, but thats
the standard practice in the west. Lopping and scattering slash is less
fuel intensive and if you get all the limbs within a foot or so of the
ground, they will decompose quickly. Larger chunks are usable for pulp
or firewood. If your chipper is tractor mounted you may cause some soil
compaction and that could be harmful to the stand.
Theres a parallel thread on chips going here.
Bob Weinberger
"Davo" <jeep...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb74f8ca-691f-43cc...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Frankly the above has me quite confused. You have an unmanaged stand that
you wish to improve the "natural balance" of by removing the the "less
desireable" trees? That seems to be quite a contradiction in terms.
There's nothing wrong with managing the forest for your own goals - such as
improving the aesthetics, or improving habitat for specific wildlife, or
improving it for timber production - but don't fool yourself into thinking
that any management you undertake "improves its natural balance". The stand
will seek its own "natural balance" and that may include
trees/conditions/species mixes that don't fit your goals or idea of what the
stand "should" look like. If you want the stand to be "natural", leave it
alone. If you want it to be in a condition to best serve some purpose,
manage it to towards that end.
As for chipping in the woods, that is feasible if, as has been already
stated, you can get the chipper near the trees without damaging other trees
or the site. However, just getting all the material from the removed trees
in close contact with the ground - limb and buck into ~ 4' lengths - is an
easier solution, though it may look a little more "messy" for the couple of
years it takes the slash to decompose.
Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR
Davo
wrote:
> "Davo" <jeepco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for responding. I understand your confusion, as my sentence
was not well-written.
I have read that excessive slash can create a fire hazard, which is
one of the reasons I am considering chipping. The aesthetics of slash
is also a consideration for me. I would leave some here and there for
wildlife cover, but the woods are quite thick and the slash would be
excessive.
I am wondering if the chips would it be detrimental to the forest
floor, and should they be widely scattered or more or less in piles.
Joe
tired of it and probably not finish.
Slash is not a fire hazard if you cut it low to the ground. or you could
then pile up some of into igloo sized piles which will be good for wildlife
and look better, but if was me I wouldn't even do that. Just spread it
around and cut it low. Within 4-5 years most of it will rot away. If you did
chip it, the chips won't hurt anything.
You could get some "free" help from the state "service foresters"- they
might even mark the trees for you, based on your goals. You can do it in
such a way as to enhance many variables, better future timber, better
conditions for wildlife, better aesthetics. These variables are not in
conflict. You can learn enough to do this yourself- just get to know the
species and cut crooked, damaged, unhealthy looking trees of the lower value
species. You could start out light- if the forest is "fully stocked" cut
maybe 10-20% the first year, then a little more each year.
There are books available for forest owners to do this sort of work
themselves. If your property is more than 10 acres you might be able to find
a forestry consultant who'll spend a few hours with you at low cost.
Joe
"Davo" <jeep...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2dbb43f6-200e-451c...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
symplastless
>I own a small forest in the northeast consisting of primarily white
> pine, beech, and red oak. It has not been managed or cared for, and I
> would like to spend my latter years improving the stand for the long
> term.
> This is not strictly for timber production. My wish is to improve the
> natural balance of the forest, if that is possible.
>
> To gradually remove some of the less desirable trees, I was
> considering chipping many of them and letting the chips fall where
> they may.
It would be better rather than chipping, giving the wood soil contact.
Mulch comes in many gradations.
There are some points that I would suggest taking into consideration.
I am sure other people on this list will offer similar suggestions. I may
be wrong.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/SOUND/soundscience/index.html
Also someone with a thorough understanding of tree anatomy could use a
SHIGOMETER to select the trees with lower vitality.
Also some good dos on managing Cavity Trees For Wildlife and From The Forest
To The Seas, A Story Of Fallen Trees.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/hardtoget/index.html
A good book would be A NEW TREE BIOLOGY at www.shigoandtrees.com
--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.
symplastless
balance is reached the result is "stop" or "death".
"Balance is the equalization of opposing forces. All is still. No movement.
Stop. Death. When any system in nature becomes balanced, it dies and gives
up its energy. In a sense nature moves towards balance. Many built in
processes resist balance. Nature moves from balance to new systems. Again if
balanced is reached, movement stops. And when movement stops, break down
starts to release energy and matter as basic parts for new systems that are
forming. The abiotic and biotic systems maintain their levels in ways that
repeat movements. If one or the other became too large or too powerful. the
natural equilibrium state would stop, and this means dearth again. Or if the
abiotic and biotic systems did reach balance, the same lack of movement
would follow and breakdown would start. This theme is always there, and if
it does change, or is forced to change, the danger is that the larger
systems would stop. The likelihood for this happening in large systems is
remote, but in smaller systems we see it all the time as biotic systems go
to balance and extinction. Humans can and do balance many small systems, and
the consequences are obvious throughout the world. As small systems are
balanced the larger systems resist balance and new systems arise. Just look
around the world if you doubt all of this." Author Anonymous