|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Just a note on "ecosystem diversity"
Posted by bushrat on Mar 09 2006
Hi David,
No problem in agreeing to disagree on some things. Wish everyone could do the same and come out of it without losing respect for the "other side."
But I wanted to chime in on what you said about "ecosystem diversity" because it chilled me to the core. The black spruce you write of that predominates in much of interior Alaska is here, of course, for a very good reason: It is one of the few northern trees that can root and grow in the highly acidic mosses that carpet and cover and insulate vast areas of permafrost. I have never before heard anyone espouse changing the black spruce forests into...well, something else. Just what is this variegated ecosystem change you are proposing? Give me an inkling as to this "variegated landscapes" idea that supports a "wide array of wild things."
It is a harsh land here in the sub-arctic. Thousands of square miles are permafrost-laden ground. If willows could grow there, they would. If aspen and poplar can grow there, they will. Where birch can grow, it does. For the most part that type of "ground" just won't support much else than mosses, grasses, herbs, small plants, and black spruce.
We only have so many south-facing slopes, riparian zones, areas of no permafrost (though climatic changes are changing this rapidly where I live). I too have often been amazed with the raven's-eye view of interior Alaska and the endless miles of black spruce forests. It does seem stark. And it is. Picea mariana is a tree species that has always fascinated me, both for it's persistence and its remarkable age. It is the "drunken forest" of lore where a 3" diameter spindly black spruce is often 150+ years old. Where the forest is "tipsy" or "drunk" because of shifts (melting, uplifting) in the permafrost ice underneath the carpet of mosses. I don't look at the endless miles of drunken forest as "unproductive" though, and I suppose we differ in that respect. Call it "God's way" or "nature's way" or whatever, but I love it for what it is. I look at it as "harmony." I hope we don't try to screw with it, as we have in other areas of the globe, where we've brought in invasive species or tried to "tame" the land and "renew" it and "remake" it to our liking. And as I said, I am not sure just how we could change it or if we should even try. We can manipulate it, yes, we can for instance cause willows to be more productive where they grow, or sprout them in areas where they can grow, for more moose browse, but we can't carpet the permafrost covered black spruce forest with them. (By the by, all that arceage of "mostly unproductive" black spruce forest also grows an incredible amount of various lichens that wandering caribou populations feed off of.) Wildfire will do it's part in the natural cycle of things, and we can even cause our own controlled burns to "help" things along in that regard. And even though my own landscape has dramatically changed from wildfire, I'm looking fwd to seeing the changes, enjoying how quickly new life sprouts, watching the succession of it all. One thing is for sure though; long after I'm dead, the areas of drunken forest will once again look the same and support the same plants and animals. At least I hope so, but after your note I'm now wondering... <grin>.
Best, Mark
Previous: Rebuttal to rebuttal ... and a new slogan David Johnson Mar 09 2006
Next: About black spruce David Johnson Mar 10 2006
 Message Thread:
|
