|
14216. iiibbb - 3/19/2005 4:37:08 PM Message # 14207
Basically, my dissertation was about whether the logging disturbances associated wet-weather harvesting affect long-term soil-site productivity. In a nutshell, does all the rutting and soil disturbance affect whether the site will continue to grow trees as well in a subsequent rotation (that is the time between harvests.. ~20 years for Southern Pine grown in the Southeast... ~40-80 years for the Douglas Fir in the Norwest).
The problem is that this is a highly confounded question. The growth in one rotation vs. another is affected by climate, silvicultural technology, genetic tree improvement (tree breeding) etc. Therefore you can't simply compare the production of a wet- and dry- harvested stand and tell very much becuase sites might not be prefectly equal. You can't subtract prior production from current production because of those 3 confounding factors. Basically, the gains in technology totally mask the fact you're degrading the actual site.
Well... I figured out a way to make this comparison, but free myself of the confounding issues. It's really a rather simple solution... but probably a little difficult to explain. It also doesn't completely solve the problem... but it does provide a way to say whether two treatments differ in terms of affecting soil-site productivity, which is a very important question.
The cool thing was that I originally presented this idea to a national meeting a year and a half ago. One of the more 'famous' guys there came up to me after my talk and said he's been coming to these meetings for 20-30 years and this was the most original idea on this topic he'd seen in 15. I was so pumped after that because I was specifically interested in how this particular person would respond to it.
Anyway... I was a little suprised how much resistance I got (from one reviewer really) as I tried to publish it; it's a double-blind review. Anyway, this guy didn't get it because in order to answer the 'important question' I have to sacrifice some other information that people generally want to see. The reviewer got caught up in this so he started to crap all over everything.
Anyhow... it'll be out there now. I think it's going to change the way people evaluate long-term productivity issues. Certainly it's going to be a valuable tool.
Sorry... more than 100 words. 14217. wonkers2 - 3/19/2005 5:17:14 PM Way to go! 14218. wonkers2 - 3/19/2005 5:24:34 PM iiibbb. You may appreciate this bit of sarcasm from E. L. Doctorow's "Ragtime:"
"In the paper was the news of Teddy Roosevelt's African safari. The great conservationist had bagged seventeen lions, eleven elephants, twenty-one rhinos, eight hippos, nine giraffes, forty-seven gazelles, twenty-nine zebras, and kudu, wildebeest, impala, eland, waterbuck, wart hog and bushbuck, beyond number." 14219. Ms. No - 3/19/2005 5:46:38 PM Congrats iiibbb! That's great news! 14220. Ms. No - 3/19/2005 5:50:21 PM Thoughtful,
You're right, I didn't see the typo and therefore the pun went over my head completely.
I haven't overpacked for a trip in years --- since I started traveling on my own, actually. My tactic is pretty similar to yours --- dont' pack anything that can't be worn at least 3 ways. Also, I pack socks and underwear that I don't mind throwing away so it creates a bit of room in my bag on the trip back for small purchases. 14221. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2005 5:58:58 PM Was this a purely theoretical exercise, iiibbb, or did you try it out on some representative tracts? 14222. wabbit - 3/19/2005 6:13:52 PM Congratulations, iiibbb! 14223. wabbit - 3/19/2005 6:17:47 PM Ms. No, don't forget the "throw as you go" school of packing. Like Ms. No and thoughtful, I'm a very efficient packer. In fact, I have what I call my 'permanently packed bag', a small bag that I can grab and run with and I'm good for at least a week pretty much anywhere. 14224. iiibbb - 3/20/2005 12:30:24 AM Message # 14221
This was a hurdle that had to be solved. The other ways to do this are either very convoluded, or very indirect. My way is the most direct, while still avoiding the confounding issues I mentioned. The stands I was working on were harvested in 1993, and planted in 1996. 14225. arkymalarky - 3/20/2005 8:59:05 PM Well, Judith and Keoni left a couple of hours ago and, as usual, we had a FANTASTIC time, start to finish! 14226. Macnas - 3/21/2005 9:11:33 AM iiibbb,
Good man yourself. 14227. alistairconnor - 3/21/2005 10:54:57 AM iii -- Cool!
and, by the way, according to your method, is there a clear-cut answer to the original question? (extra degradation from wet-weather cutting) 14228. Magoseph - 3/21/2005 2:22:47 PM ... we had a FANTASTIC time, start to finish!
May we know a little more about what you all did?
Hello, Ali! 14229. iiibbb - 3/21/2005 2:41:37 PM Message # 1422
There is a way to make a statement as to whether one forest practice is more harmful than another. If one of the treatments is considered 'non-damaging' then you can make a case that the others are or are not.
The sensitivity to disturbance is going to be site type specific. You wouldn't expect all forests to behave the same anyway. My particular sites, as it turns out, appear to be quite resiliant to the logging disturbances. The soils have shrink-swell properties and through repeated wetting and drying manage to remediate themselves. They are also already very fertile, so there is no issue with nutrient depletion, which may not be the case on other sites.
We buggered the hell out of my sites and I found no difference in the change in site productivity... at least do to the logging disturbances. 14230. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2005 4:15:57 PM I really don't understand this with wet and dry harvesting. No rain, no forest, isn't that so? 14231. judithathome - 3/21/2005 4:58:00 PM Well, Keoni and I didn't overpack this weekend, that's for sure. Two shirts each, clean undies, and pajamas. That's it. One bag for both of us.
We went to Old Washington with Arky and spent the day looking at civil war era houses, shops, and even a civil war era court house. I was most fascinated by the print shop and Keoni liked the gun museum, which was housed in the old bank and I would defy anyone to attempt breaking into that bank...the walls were solid brick and the floor was bricked, too...no windows and only one door. My broken leg gave up the stamina ghost before we got down to the blacksmith shop...next time, we'll start at that end and work our way back up. ;-)
It was beautiful weather and of course, wonderfully quiet at Arky's place. A super weekend of great conversation, great food, and relaxing pace. Excellent hosts...I can highly recommend them. 14232. PsychProf - 3/21/2005 5:06:27 PM I am a pathological over packer. Then I get irritated when I have to drag the stuff everywhere. Must be genetic. 14233. judithathome - 3/21/2005 5:13:19 PM I follow Thoughtful's rules for packing and rarely over-pack. Another hint...lay out each item, smooth it out and fold over once, then roll it. Less wrinkling and very efficient to pack, leaves more room than you'd expect. 14234. Ms. No - 3/21/2005 5:41:56 PM Ooh! I'm quite envious!
I had rather an interesting weekend myself, though. Saturday was sandal and book shopping out with my bro and nephew but yesterday I went to the Silver Lake Leather Days Street Fair and let me tell you I have never seen so many pairs of ass-less chaps in my life.
14235. Magoseph - 3/21/2005 6:38:13 PM Flexy always buys too many pears so I decide to poach the ones threatening to spoil. I find a recipe on Google and everything goes well until this heavenly smell reaches me. Always suspecting Flexy to buy sweet rolls, another one of his indulgences, I rush to the kitchen and find him stirring some sort of compote in the pot where the poached pears were cooling. Well, I never shut the heat off the pears and Flexy was just trying to help the situation--the resulting mess is delicious and there is no plan for lunch or dinner today.
|
