Re: De/Transforestation at the NW. European Neolith/Mesolithic boundary

prd wrote: news:Qc2Hg.681270$Fs1.212268@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In sci.archaeology message
news:44ec90db$0$86702$dbd4b001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx by "Peter Alaca"
<P.Alaca@xxxxxx> . . . :

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.

That is your misunderstanding,

No, it bis yours

tyhe trees may be mature

There are not that many 'mature' trees in a
narural mature forest in temperate Europe.

but the entire forest ecosystem may not be mature given a constant climate
a 500 year old forest that began on a sterile plane _Still_
has not reach equilibrium, even after 500 years. It is close
but when I say equilibrium I mean that the inflow of nutrients
is equal to the outflow of nutrients, and that carbon is balanced
if not for an equilibrium situation.
In the US we still have old growth forest in parts of the country
it may take 100s of years for some types of cyress to rot on the
forest floor, while it does it attracts communities of animals into
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?

You burn the forest for grazing land. There are papers dealing
with high altitude forests in europe, have you read them?

I know of high altitude conifer forests, yes.
Can you tell me about neolithic deforestation
of these areas?


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.

The pines were there because it was a wetland! Why was it a
wetland? Because the pines were there. Remove the pines
and drain the wetlands and they are no longer favored. If you go up
and down the texas northern coast, just back of the coastal
grassland you have pine forest, semitropical temperate climate and
we have pine forest and they are naturally selected. How did it
become a wetland, as the coastal plateau elevated there were few
outlets and little erosion, as a result water was retained and
trees grew, whoopie, and pines have preserved that structure until,
imagine that, humans came along and started carving up the
ecosystem. You can find pines even in the tropics in the highlands
of mexico.

But that are not the same species.

During WWII
the forest disappeared, Guess Why? Then the forest service came
along and decided we needed management, the pine trees are back.
Just like a switch we can make them come and go. BUt where there
are residences their are Oaks, live oak. Where there are cattle
ranches there tend to be oaks, why? Well take a look at were the
water tanks usually are located. Cows go under the trees in the
middle of the day and chew their cud.

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.

Yes but if some one or thing intentially preserves the litter such
that the 'gasoline' wood in the base of the forest increases
you can create a vigorous fire that no tree will surive.
In which case and if you repeat this process before 1:500 years
at widely spaced intervals you can selective get rid of certain
types of trees, so that finally those trees are _gone_.

And you and up with fire prone but fire resistant
mediterranean vegetations like those in California.

You are not looking at the data as a scientist, there were
junipers and other small trees that invaded after the LGM,
but it was not until much later were the soil conditions
appropriate for pines, and still 1000 to 1000s of years
after that they were optimal. Don't just read what supports
your point of view, read all the literature.

Hey, I'm a ecologist, remember?
And read what I have posted on the subject.

I can go into a forest and start a bonfire in late october
or so and gasoline wood or not once the whole thing reaches a
critical temperature in one spot, the fire is going to take off.

The species requires 50 or so undisturbed years to reach near
equilibrium height.

should have been at least. In 50 years in the US we can grow
2 forests. What this means is starting from a cleared
forest with humus underneath and nutrients on the surface
and not too many competing trees the first generation and
grow very rapidly with distance between grains double or
triple that of an old growth forest. It say nothing about
biomass, only height.

How do you know wat the equilibrium height
was for the circumstances then? Remember
that we are not talking about North-American
production forests here, but about natural
systems with very limited human impact.

We have those here in the US you know, ever heard of the
redwood forest. The house I am living in was built of wood
from a virgin pine forest. At one point we had alot more
than you have in europe. You forget about the europeanization
of North America?
Now of course because of incursion of european and asian
pest species we have recession of natural strands in the US.

And we have a lot of trouble with American
pest species and plant diseases and pests,
thank you very much. But that is not what we
are discussing.

The so called 'tiger' pine or loplolly pines that were found
in virgin forest are gone, but we still have virgin oak strands
and in fact if you go to fulton and st.charles bay there is an Oak
there of 2000 years in age, so much for the sensititivity of Oaks.
Many Oaks in Texas are around the 500 year mark. Alot were lost
however to viruses that spread from the northeast.

But you gave no answer to the important question
"How do you know wat the equilibrium height
was for the circumstances then?"


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LBK onset:Mesolithic boundary (Trees)
    ... Noting a transition in trees. ... Pines to oaks and fruit trees ... And pine will take much lower tempreatures than oak. ... sides of forest by farming and tree cuts for housing you can ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: LBK onset:Mesolithic boundary (Trees)
    ... Noting a transition in trees. ... Pines to oaks and fruit trees ... sides of forest by farming and tree cuts for housing you can ... the wooden fence oak species grow quite readily, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • foller t yeller brick
    ... Forest Pines Car Park... ... In a rare moment of observational eptitude, as I enter the car park I ... A mile or so into the ride, I UPD clumsily on a fairly smooth section ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)
  • Re: De/Transforestation at the NW. European Neolith/Mesolithic boundary
    ... soil for a period of time. ... forest 500 years later to be 1/2 or 2/3rds. ... the pines were there. ... every 100 of 200 years which is damaging to species ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Italian Mesolithic/Neolithic Boundary.
    ... Neolithic with pines in the upland regions and mixed ... How is "Mediterranean forest" defined? ... of trees that persisted, certain pines, oak, etc. ... important zones for Neolithization and made additionally ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast