One more oak adventure in the steppe!

I know I've been pretty oak-centric in my blogging, but I wanted to relate one more great experience I had in the oak forests of Vinnitska Oblast before I find another topic. After finishing my field work at Vinnitsya Forest Management Unit I joined my friend Oleksandr Schinder from the Nat'l Botanical Garden on a expedition to Pridnistrovie, the region along the Dniester River on the Ukraine-Moldova border. Our goal: to find Quercus pubescens, an oak of mediterranean climates that is quite common on the Crimean peninsula, but in the far northern extent of its range here. 

Pridnistrovia is a fascinating landscape: open rolling steppe (lots of orchards) broken by steep shallow ravines (yari) and cut by the deep valley of the Dniester, almost a canyon in places. There are little patches of productive hornbeam-oak forests on the plateaus, and xeric oak with open steppe glades in the yari and on the cliffs above the Dniester. Our first day we searched a hornbeam-oak forest on a productive site. We found Quercus robur (no surprise) and Q. petraea (an interesting find), but no Q. pubescens. The stand was pretty typical of "protective forests" in the region: well-formed mature hornbeam, oak and linden, with no understory to speak of and practically no dead wood. No clearcutting here, but obsessive "sanitary" removal of weak and dead trees. The ecological consequences of sanitation harvesting for wildlife dependent on deadwood is going to be a major theme of my work here. 

Our second day brought success. We caught a taxi from the town of Yampil' and stopped at a cornfield about 15 km out. On the horizon you could see a fringe of oak trees. What was not visible was the spectacular drop off from there to the Dniester, a steep tumble of dry oak forest, limestone cliffs and steppe glades. We instantly found Quercus pubescens, a runty looking scrub oak. We then descended a bit farther downslope into the steppe glades and Oleksandr entered botanist heaven: he found a new "Red Book" species about every ten minutes. (The Red Book is the list of rare and endangered organisms in Ukraine requiring protection. All European countries have Red Books. Do we?) The view was unbelievable: the cliffs hugging a big bend on the Dniester, with endless rolling chernozem fields on the Moldovan side of the river. 

We got back into the forest and hiked a bit farther, suddenly coming across a steep limestone canyon. The slopes were really unstable, with multiple springs flowing out of the karst. Towards the river the slopes became sheer cliffs (with caves) and isolated limestone "chimneys" between them. Really jaw-dropping scenery. The list of rarities kept growing, including velika khvosh, a huge Equisetum. The stream that ran through the canyon was forested all the way to the Dniester. The little delta forest at its end had its own diverse suite of plants, and is an extremely rare biotope. Nearly all of the intervale lands along the river are farmland. We agreed to make a return trip to this fascinating forest in March, when a whole new world of plants (spring ephemerals) will be visible.

It was a pleasure to participate in some pure science for a day, but I kept thinking about the forest management angle. This forest is part of a lishosp, so it is available for harvesting. I'm sure it is entirely zoned as protective forest, so only sanitary cutting is permitted. Productivity is extremely low; I doubt more than 10% of the oak here is sawtimber. There is a campaign right now to increase the acreage of the "Nature Preservation Fund" in Vinnitska Oblast, which includes landscape parks, and zoological, botanical and geological reserves. We discussed how this forest is nearly ideal for park designation, with its high concentration of rare species and unique landscape features. Oleksandr even plans to petition the State Forestry Committee to give it that status. But is it necessary? If park status ended forest management in this area, there would be gains and losses. The presence of snags, cavity trees and downed logs would gradually increase with the exclusion of sanitation harvesting (good for such species as Dryocopus martius, Europe's largest woodpecker). I suspect ending this practice would help Quercus pubescens too. Pubescent oak is very hard to distinguish from common oak but has worse growth and form, so it might get culled disproportionately during sanitation. 

But as Oleksandr pointed out, the small gaps created during harvest could facilitate regeneration of pubescent oak, the least shade-tolerant species in the mix. And of course, excluding forest management reduces the supply of firewood to local villages and removes an important employment source. Might it not be better to maintain the forest as lishosp territory but adapt harvesting to better protect pubescent oak and promote natural structure? I hope to address this question in my project, and to help develop adaptations to sanitation harvesting. In many cases, I think it would be possible to cut more wood and achieve better regeneration through the use of gap selection that the single-tree sanitary selection practiced most commonly. Hopefully I'll have some more to blog about on this topic as my project advances...

Natural regeneration of Quercus robur

I recently posted about the bleak situation with Quercus petraea silviculture in the south of Vinnitska Oblast. Now I'll give a bit of better news, about efforts to develop natural regeneration techniques in Quercus robur forests in the central part of the oblast. This is the work of Evgeniia Krementska at the National Agricultural University, who is leading a great effort by the forestry faculty to diversify the range of silvicultural options available to Ukrainian foresters. 

All forest harvests in Ukraine must be identifiable as one of a short list of "approved" harvest types listed in the Forest Code. For obvious reasons, this limits creativity and experimentation. But recently a new type was added: rubka pereformiruvannye, which translates like "reformation harvest". This broad category allows for a variety of treatments that aim to develop desirable structural or compositional characteristics in even-aged stands. Dr. Kremenetska has been establishing experiments in Vinnitska Oblast to demonstrate what this might mean in practice. The best examples are on Tulchinske Forest Management Unit.

In Tulchyn, it is often possible to find good cover of oak seedlings in open areas such as roads and clearings. But a dense midstory of hornbeam often shades them out in the forest. The goal of "reformation harvesting" here is to begin developing advance regeneration of oak as the first step towards creating an uneven-aged stand. This very much resembles the first stage of  an oak shelterwood: remove the midstory of shade-tolerants and thin the oak canopy. But in theory the next harvests will start trending more towards selection. Some proportion of the canopy cohort will be retained (they talk about a 200 year rotation for these trees, and hopefully some will be permanently retained), while good patches of advance regeneration will be released with gaps ("windows"). 

We saw an interesting array of stands where this treatment is taking place. A 70 year old stand where oak and hornbeam were both in the upper canopy, and the latter made up at least 40% of the stand. A really beautiful 100+ year old stand of oak sawtimber with full canopy cover, no hornbeam midstory, and a nice cover of first-year oak seedlings. A 2-age stand with a dominant cohort of 200 year old oaks and a younger oak-hornbeam cohort. In all of these stands high-quality oaks have been selected for retention, while low-grade oak and most of the hornbeam are slated for cutting. It will be very interesting in the next few years to see if advance oak regeneration was successfully released (or established in those places where it is currently shaded out). 

Would these treatments actually get used outside of the experimental context? I think they are attractive to foresters whose management units contain a high proportion of "protective forests." In this forest category clearcutting is prohibited, which eliminates the primary method of regeneration here: clearcut-plant. Usually protective forests are managed under a "sanitary selection harvest" regime, in which low-grade trees are gradually culled out in a series of light cuts. This makes for lovely forests, but is not very economical and usually makes no provision for oak regeneration. I think some foresters are beginning to think seriously about real regeneration methods when clearcutting is not available. But I doubt "reformation harvesting" would be much used in the exploitation forest category. 

However, we also saw a 3 ha clearcut that was nicely stocked with natural oak regeneration one year after harvest. It seems that this good result could perhaps be replicated if clearcuts were targeted for good acorn years. But the foresters told me that not all stands have sufficient acorn production to achieve such seedling stocking, even in a good acorn year. I suspect this might have to do with crown size, as many stands are very high-density and thus have poorly formed oak crowns. 

Quercus petraea in the forest-steppe

I have spent a couple more weeks in Vinnitska Oblast since my last post, and have learned even more about forest-steppe oak and the challenges of managing it. I took a great field trip with my colleague from the Agricultural University, Evgeniia Kremenetska. She is trying to demonstrate new silvicultural methods in the region, and has plots in Krizhopil in the south of oblast. In this region Quercus petraea naturally dominates, while Q. robur makes up a lesser component. 

Krizhopil got slammed by the same ice storm that I described in my last post. Nearly 100% of the management unit was effected, and most tree crowns sustained heavy damage. The foresters told me right off that this crown damage made natural regeneration of oak (which they already consider really hard) next to impossible. I was skeptical, especially when we saw a clearcut from last year that had abundant Q. petraea regen mixed between the planted rows of Q. robur. But then we visited a mature stand that is slated for salvage clearcutting. We found two beautiful petraea that still had good crowns, and the ground was absolutely covered in acorns. (We did a little measuring and found that 50% of them were viable). I thought, "see, you could regenerate this naturally!" But when we walked around the rest of the stand pulling back the leaf litter we could barely find another viable acorn. When you looked up the oak crowns were just a bunch of broken branches and watersprouts. We repeated this experience in several more stands and I started to believe that the regenerative potential of these stands was really compromised by the storm. Whether these crowns could recover to acorn-producing quality with more time is another question...

The solution in Krizhopil has mostly been to salvage these damaged stands (often several decades before rotation age) and to establish plantations of Q. robur (it is really hard to grow petraea in nurseries, so all artificial regen here is the other oak species). When they can get some good post-clearcut natural regeneration, that's icing on the cake. But they aren't going to rely on it. Here Evgeniia is experimenting with underplanting oak seedlings before the final harvest, in the hope that they will be more established and competitive after a few years in the understory than seedlings planted post-harvest. If they are, it might be necessary to do less intensive cleaning treatments, because the oak will be more capable of competing with the hardwood brush and ruderals. We saw nice rows of seedlings growing beneath a lightly thinned canopy. The next stage of the experiment will be to see whether it is possible to protect these seedlings during harvesting. 

My impression from Krizhopil was a bit sad - in response to the ice storm damage, a large area of natural forest (albeit highly modified natural forest) is going to be converted to intensive oak plantations. This would have happened anyway as rotation age was reached, but the storm greatly accelerated the process. The foresters do not have any realistic alternative to salvage-plant (both due to the natural challenges and a dearth of research on natural regen). What makes this sadder is that the storm basically pounded the region where Q. petraea is dominant. The area of petraea forests in Ukraine was already shrinking; now it will contract even faster. 

I think there should be some measures taken to maintain a significant acreage of natural petraea forests, since the Ukrainian forest-steppe population is isolated and genetically unique. Even damaged forests could be important for maintaining this species, but of course conserving these areas would entail a major sacrifice for the forest management units. I imagine a survey of existing petraea forests in Vinnitska and Odeska Oblasts, in which the healthiest and most viable stands are identified and excluded from conversion. Perhaps even individual trees could be conserved, like those good acorn producers we saw in Krizhopil.

Oak silviculture in the forest-steppe

For the past couple of days I have been visiting a forest management unit in Chechelnik, Vinnitsya Oblast. This is the "forest-steppe" region- a mixture of wide open chernozem fields and oak-ash forests.  I've been here getting acquainted with the management unit and planning a little botanical expedition in the spring with a colleague from the National Botanical Garden.

I've had a short but fascinating introduction to forestry in this region. It is quite far to the south (near the Moldovan border), and almost in the true steppe zone, where forests are extremely scarce. Natural forests are dominated by Quercus robur and it's less common cousin Quercus petraea, with a sizable component of Fraxinus excelsior, Carpinus betulus, Tilia cordata, Acer platanoides, Acer pseudoplatanus, and Ulmus carpinofolia. There is also a species of wild cherry and "bereka", a rare Sorbus. Moisture is limiting here so the forests are on the xeric side. Typical structure might be oak and ash as dominants, with a midstory of hornbeam, bereka and linden and advance regen of maple, ash and hornbeam. 

Silviculture in this region leans heavily towards artificial regeneration. Seed is collected locally and sown in nurseries around the management unit. Rows are heavily scarified in clearcut areas and either acorns or oak seedlings are planted at quite close spacing. I think the rows are about eight feet apart and within the rows seedlings are 2-3 feet apart. The foresters very frequently enter these young stands to do cleaning and liberation treatments. I think four or five of these pre-commercial treatments is not unusual, followed still by early-commercial thinnings for firewood. (Can these treatments pay for themselves? I'm dubious). Often these plantations are mixed - every fourth row will be maple, linden, ash, spruce, walnut or cherry. 

The management unit was hit hard by an ice storm in 2002. Damage was quite severe, and a large proportion of the trees here have damaged crowns with lots of water sprouts. As a result, many "sanitary clearcuts" have been carried out to salvage heavily damaged stands. However, a large proportion of the management unit is classified as "botanical reserve" (the mixture of northern forest and southern steppe species is quite unique), where clearcutting is prohibited. So here they have been carrying out a series of extremely light "sanitary selection" harvests. These target trees with broken crowns, otherwise unhealthy trees and snags. The volume removed seems very low to me - I would guess that less than 5% is removed in any given harvest. From a silvicultural perspective, it is great to be able to enter these stands so frequently and lightly. But again I have to wonder- can such silviculture pay for itself? Is this management regime self-sustaining, or subsidized by the State Forestry Committee? 

These sanitary selection harvests have some downsides, too. They are not effective at regenerating oak - the gaps created are extremely small and are quickly occupied by advance regeneration of ash, maple and hornbeam. In general, the goal in these forests is to maintain mature crown cover (as is mandated by law), so regeneration is of secondary concern. From an ecological perspective, the constant "cleaning" of these forests is quite severe. They are almost literally without snags and coarse woody material - this is obsessively collected for firewood. Even cavity trees are extremely scarce- I saw one nice ash cavity tree, and the forester I was working with grumbled "why didn't they cut that? Sloppy work..." A few times I broached the subject of whether leaving some snags, downed logs and wildlife trees would be appropriate in an ecological reserve. The reaction was not positive! The foresters here love order and cleanliness, and that means that deadwood is not tolerated. 

Happily, they are beginning to experiment with group selection in protective forests. I saw one really nice mature oak stand where 2-3 tree gaps were cut. (Interestingly, they call gaps "windows"). The natural oak regeneration was beautiful - see the photo above. The foresters seemed quite enthusiastic about this and told me that they plan to try this method in other protective forests in the management unit. But I need to put this in perspective: for every couple hectares where they are trying out group selection, there are probably 50 hectares of intensive clearcut-scarify-plant. The movement towards natural regeneration is very tentative, despite lots of research and support from Kyiv. Ukrainian foresters just love planting trees - it is a major part of their professional image and they regard it as "correct" silviculture. 

Road infrastructure

When I was studying forestry they really drilled into us the importance of good road infrastructure for forest management. Working in Maine I was able to see some good examples, but it is especially stark here in the Carpathians. I learned early on at the lishosp that practically no new forest roads have been built on this territory since the fall of the Soviet Union. But this does not mean that large areas of the lishosp have been inaccessible. On the contrary, they've reached almost every place that's not too steep to cut. They do this be using mountain streams as logging roads. I found this pretty shocking when I first saw it, but have learned that it is very common in the Carpathians, and makes forest management possible in a lot of unroaded areas.

It has some pretty clear ecological consequences, though. At the least, the weight of the skidders and log trucks distorts the streambed, often destroying the natural stream structure and creating two channels (in the tiretracks). Much worse than this, a series of skid roads run straight into the stream. In these steep conditions these skid roads often turn into mini-muslides. The skidders and trucks rip up the streamside vegetation, allowing for even more soil movement into the stream. In the most extreme example I have seen, a steep slope above a small stream was clearcut directly to the stream bank. The logs were then rolled down the slope, and picked up by a log truck parked in the stream. This only 100 yards from the site of a recent mudslide. 

I have talked with some foresters here about this, but it is a very touchy subject. If the use of these small streams for logging was prohibited, it would put most of their territory off limits to exploitation. I have come to see this as the most negative aspect of forest management here, in unfortunate contrast the many good aspects such as the system of protected areas. In fact, there is even an excellent network of riparian protective zones within the lishosp. But these are focused on the main river (Prut) and its largest tributaries. Small streams (potoki) are unprotected and treated more like transportation routes than natural water bodies. As a result, plumes of mud flow into the Prut from these streams whenever there is an ongoing logging operation. It is important to note that forestry is not alone in this problem - there appear to be few limits on streamside construction, and I often see big areas of floodplain stripped of vegetation to build new hotels. The ski resort Bukovel (Ukraine's biggest, within the lishosp where I work) is the biggest offender. Thanks to a huge amount of new construction there, the Prutets River (the Prut's biggest tributary) runs brown almost constantly. 

Some money is beginning to trickle into Carpathian lishospi to build new roads. I worked a few days with Volodymyr Korzhov, a forest roads specialists from the Institute of Mountain Forestry in Ivano-Frankivsk. He travels around the Oblast helping lishospi design new mountain roads to "Austrian" standards. As he told me, the quality of the road on the ground is often much worse than what he designed on the map. But at least these roads are not located in a stream! He took me to Osmolodske Lishosp, deep in the Gorgany Mountains on the Ivano-Frankivsk/Zakarpattye border. There we saw a beautiful new "Austrian" road that is being built into the Gorgany. I admired the quality, but also had to wonder what the new accessibility this road brings will mean to remote forests of the Gorgany... I think this territory would be a great place to do high conservation value forest delineation, before the logging starts. 

My first field study: Vorokhta Forest Management Unit

For the months of September and October I have been living in the Ukrainian Carpathians, doing a field study for my project in the Vorokhta region. I am working at the local forest management unit (Lishosp), which is publicly owned and managed by the State Committee of Forest Management. I am using this lishosp as a test case for how the new Ukrainian High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) standards could be applied in managed forests in the Carpathians. 

I have used FSC certification to frame this question, because the forestry administration in this province (Ivano-Frankivsk) has expressed interest in certifying all its lishospi. But FSC is basically unknown among field foresters here, and so my topic is met with a lot of suspicion! I think foresters fear that HCVF identification will remove even more of their acreage from the "exploitation fund" and place it in the "protective fund". There is probably some truth in this, but I believe that their existing network of protective forests (on steep slopes, around rivers, where rare forest types are found) already includes most of the HCVF in the territory. 41% of this lishosp is in the protective forest category. Clearcutting is forbidden in protective forests, and some are entirely off limits to forest management. 

I am really interested in the network of small protected areas that were established in Soviet times throughout managed forests. In the area I am working, there are several "monuments of nature", including relict populations of Pinus cembra, cliff forests dominated by Pinus sylvestris, and very high productivity beech forests.  I think the Soviet botanists and foresters who identified and protected these areas made a major contribution to biodiversity conservation. These areas usually go at the top of the list for HCVF in any given area. 

The pictures above are from "monuments of nature" and other protective forests inside Vorokhtyanske Lishosp. The gnarly looking pine is Pinus cembra, or Swiss stone pine. It is only found in small relictual stands in the Carpathians.

Hello from Ukraine! I have now been here for more than two months, but have only recently established any kind of reliable internet connection. So I've got a pretty big backlog of experiences to right about! I'm living in the Carpathians now, but my first Ukrainian post will be about a short trip I took to Polissie Zapovednik (Nature Reserve) in northern Ukraine.

My advisor Sergiy Zibtsev took me to meet the reserve because he is working on fire management issues there. The forests of the Polissie ("in the woods") region cover a big swathe of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Poland. It is a mixture of dry outwash sites and extensive swamps, with scots pine being the dominant species in both types. Silver birch is also quite common, and there is some Populus tremula. Quercus robur is present too, but site quality is so low in the Reserve that it only grows as a small midstory tree. The reserve was established to protect a complex of unique bog ecosystems, and the forests within it are generally very dry and unproductive pine sites. Picture widely spaced, slow-growing scots pine with a few scattered midstory oaks and a ground cover of blueberry. Also lots of scots pine plantations.

In 2007 there was a big fire here (550 hectares). Mortality in young stands and plantations was very high, while older pines in natural stands withstood the fire with minimal damage. The director of the reserve wants to start using prescribed fire to reduce fuel loading. His imperative is to protect peatland communities, which can be very badly damaged by creeping peat fires. He also wants to initiate prescribed burning in the neighboring forest management units and collective farms. Such coordination is not easy in Ukraine, and he is already working against very strong anti-fire feeling in the forestry establishment. 

Probably the most interesting aspect of the trip was the official response to the fires. They were regarded only as a disaster, even though fire is actually quite natural in Polissie and older pine forests are well adapted to it. Zapovedniks are strict nature reserves, but here we saw extensive salvaging of burnt stands, even ones that will easily survive the fire. Fire could actually help restore natural structural features here, but burnt stands are clearcut and replanted. We saw some areas that had very high fire mortality, which was followed by excellent natural regeneration of pine. But because the foresters must demonstrate that they did something in response to the fire, it is possible that some of this regen will be plowed under and nursery seedlings planted there instead! It is very important to show that burnt acres have been actively "reforested"...

Dr. Zibtsev is trying to convince the reserve managers to at least leave healthy residuals and fire snags during the salvage process, to help maintain some complex features in the next stand. He is also trying to identify stands that will survive the fires well and do not need to be salvaged. 

Red pine in mixed stands?

Last week I went downeast with Kyle Burdick to do the Fourth Machias Lake-Gasabias Lake- Nicatous Lake route. We never found the Gasabias Portage, which was a pain, but we saw some beautiful pine forests on Fourth Machias and Nicatous. White and red pine play a more dominant role here than northern Maine; if you never leave the lakes you might think pine was all that grew here. I think this goes hand in hand with the greater place of fire downeast than anywhere up north. Unfortunately, Hancock and Washington Counties are not included in the early survey records, so it is hard to demonstrate fire's historic place here. (But if anyone could ever find the surveys from Bingham's Penobscot Purchase, that would be a goldmine. For that matter, the surveys from his Kennebec Purchase would tell us a lot about pre-settlement forests in western Maine.)

Most of the red pine on the lakes is in fairly pure, even-aged clumps, as you'd expect from fire origin. But there are a fair number of mixed pine-hemlock-spruce stands, where red pine is sprinkled fairly thinly throughout. They don't look like older residuals, I think they are in the same cohort(s) as the spruce and hemlock. So how did these stands develop? Either they are fire-generated (unlikely, I think) or red pine is adapted to typical Acadian forest gap dynamics. It would be very interesting to take a closer look at red pine in mixed stands, and understand its potential recruitment pathways better. I suspect that on pine-friendly outwash sites (i.e. near Nicatous), red pine can regenerate after small partial disturbances. The picture shows some nice red pine seedlings coming up in a light (trails-only) cut near the lake. 

Structural Complexity Enhancement

I was in Vermont for two days visiting Bill Keeton and Yurij Bihun to discuss my Fulbright project, and had the chance to visit Bill's Structural Complexity Enhancement (SCE) plots in the Mt. Mansfield State Forest. Bill developed this harvest method as a means of speeding the development of late-successional features in maturing stands. It uses variable density thinning to make small gaps, release midstory trees, and open up the crowns of canopy dominants, all while retaining the largest stems. Snags and CWD are deliberately 

created, and in some treatments trees are even pushed over to simulate windthow.

In adjacent plots there are traditional single-tree and group selection treatments, but with the residual

 basal area increased from normal and the max. diameter increased to 24 inches. This is meant to demonstrate how simply tweaking traditional harvest systems might enhance structural complexity, in comparison to the SCE method. 

I have to say, even the traditional treatments have some pretty impressive "big structure" (see right), but the vertical and horizontal diversity is noticeably lower. The SCE treatment is a jumble of small gaps, poletimber, snags and big canopy trees, arranged with none of the order and uniformity of selection. This is the point, and it is impressively "complex". Happily, Bill has found that sugar maple will regenerate in the tiny gaps created (and yellow birch will on the artificial tip-up mounds). Also, SCE actually benefits populations of late-successional herbs (they don't get overwhelmed by ruderals) and has boosted red-backed salamander populations due to more CWD. 

It is nice to see a couple of concrete biodiversity benefits from SCE. I have certainly seen how important old, complex stands can be for rare lichens. But the number of species that are actually dependent on such stands seems pretty low. For SCE and similar treatments to catch on, I think we would have to see how structural complexity benefits non-obligate species. Does it allow a greater breadth of successional guilds to use a stand at the same time? Could we effectively "pack in" more habitat value per stand by creating more structural diversity and more niches? 

Microburst, July 2006

In July 2006, we had an amazing microburst 

windstorm come through our region. I don't know its exact trajectory, but I think it blew SW-NE, hitting Somerville,

 Palermo and Liberty especially hard. I heard that some southern Kennebec County towns also got hit, and there is impressive windthrow from about the same time on some islands in Casco Bay. 

When this storm occurred we had not had a serious large-scale disturbance in Somerville since the Ice Storm of 1998. The microburst created gaps in the canopy from single-tree size to 5+ acres. The arrangement of snags, downed logs and residual trees after the event was fascinating: a textbook example of how natural disturbance impacts stand development. Certain species were hit harder than others. Tall, emergent white pines were "combed out" of mixed forests. Pure, old-field pine stands (including some that I helped my friend Shaun to thin immaculately) were totalled, often through snapping.  On mixed hardwood-hemlock ridges, aspen tended to be the hardest hit, while red oak and red maple were thrown selectively. A lot of hardwoods sustained heavy crown damage but didn't fall. I have read that yellow birch and red maple are adapted to slough off large branches in wind storms to reduce their crown "sail".

Where winds were strong enough, the storm did amazing damage to pure stands of oak sawtimber, which I had thought of as a wind-resistant species. 

Hemlock was pretty susceptible, especially if it was already decadent. In Casco Bay (Whaleboat Island) the storms knocked down swathes of red spruce about 200 feet wide, while leaving adjacent areas untouched. But even within areas of susceptible species like spruce, there were still lots of "canopy legacies"- snags, heavily-damaged trees and surprisingly intact survivors.

One thing that really fascinated me was how well this storm replicated, on a much smaller scale, what I have read about the Hurricane of 1938. Just as in 1937, in 2005 there was a large supply of dense old-field pine stands in stem exclusion. These were growing on abandoned farmland, on sites where such a structure and composition was probably unnatural. The storm knocked them down almost without exception. After the blowdown and resultant salvage, the advance regeneration of oak, maple and ash is dominating the site. I suspect that many of the mixed hardwood stands in Somerville had a similar origin.

Of course, salvage has really changed the development trajectory for these areas. In Somerville and Palermo, almost the entire affected are was salvaged. (Often quite well). Where there was a lot of wood on the ground, salvage tended to destroy most of the advance regeneration. I think that the best place to see how storm-affected stands develop without salvage will be Whaleboat Island, which is owned by TNC as a coastal reserve. 

Welcome to my blog!

Hello!

     I was recently going through my huge collection of pictures I have taken in the woods, and decided that I should really share these with fellow forestry wonks. I also wanted a place to talk about my work and the ideas in forestry that really interest me, and to hear what other people think. I won't be using this blog for general, non-forestry related things in my life. So if you're not looking for silvicultural ramblings and lots of pictures of trees, turn back now! 

     

If that kind of thing gets you going, than I hope you'll enjoy my future posts. Please respond frequently- I will put a lot of questions in here that I hope people will help answer. I'm going to start with some of my favorite pics and topics from the last couple years. In a couple months I should start posting on my exciting new work in Ukraine. 

     Enjoy!