Re: De/Transforestation at the NW. European Neolith/Mesolithic boundary
- From: "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:30:56 +0200
prd wrote:
news:chZGg.291828$mF2.70601@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Uwe Müller" . . . :
[...]
How do we know that there was not rolling occupation of some of
these areas? Look at the level of accupation found in the german
site when intense survey was undertaken, 80% of a 70km site was
used at some point, only breifly. This altered the charater of the
soil for a period of time. Granted that is not going to tear down a
forest 1000 years later, but it may cause the total biomass of a
forest 500 years later to be 1/2 or 2/3rds.
No. A 500 yr old forest is more than mature.
and when prehistoric man thought of forest he
was not thinking in biomass and carboncontent.
He was thinking of food and timber and firewood.
If he needed that from the forest and there was not
enough of that in the forest as it was, he changed
the forest.
You cannot cut down a pine forest and then expect good cropland,
But there was no need to cut down pine forests.
If there were pine forests, there were better forest
to cut down. Do you think they were stupid?
as I mentioned you need to bring in hardy grasses and graze and
reburn the grasses or chop out new growth. In some areas is might
require tending for 50 or 100 years. If I get the story correct
here, in the 1930s they chopped down interdispersed pines and build
an airstrip in a cattle ranch, the airport was removed and the land
subdivided and the pine tannins are still inhibitory to many
plants. That is over 70 years.
Yes, but you also have to ask why
the pines were there.
[...]
All of this make sense if they are buring forest
every 100 of 200 years which is damaging to species
like pines which overwhelm the canopy.
You noted, that they did not even mention pinus?
Yes. In fact I looked for their arboreal break down.
As Uwe pointed out and as you can figure out
from my other post(s) pine moved up and north
thousends of years before. You are too late.
And btw, pines are better resitant to fire than
most broad-leafed species, and as pioneers
they germinate easily in the barren soil after
the fire. And they can still thrive in poor leached
soils.
[...]
practices. A natural consequence over a 50 year period is for
tall strand pinus species to undergo reforestation.
The case study talked of 2000 years of occupation before there
were consequences. How do you arrive at 50 years?
The species requires 50 or so undisturbed years to reach near
equilibrium height.
How do you know wat the equilibrium height
was for the circumstances then? Remember
that we are not talking about North-American
production forrests here, but about natural
systems with very limited human impact.
[...]
--
p.a.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Tecuaque archaelogical findings.
- Next by Date: Re: LBK onset:Mesolithic boundary (Trees)
- Previous by thread: Re: De/Transforestation at the NW. European Neolith/Mesolithic boundary
- Next by thread: Re: De/Transforestation at the NW. European Neolith/Mesolithic boundary
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
