|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
About black spruce
Posted by David Johnson (Host)
on Mar 10 2006
Mark, what I am promoting is a return to a more natural fire regime in Alaska.
Since the mid 20th century, the federal government, and then the state, began large scale fire suppression over much of Alaska. The result of that is that instead of the natural patchwork of forest stands of varying ages, we have mile on mile of black spruce.
Black spruce is the dominant species in the climax forest it dominates. As you point out, there is quite a bit of moss there, and it is moss that chills the forest floor (or keeps it from warming, if you will), and that makes it tough for the willows and aspens and poplars to survive or new ones to take root.
The natural progression of Interior Alaska forests following fire is grasses and forbs, brush, willows, birch, aspens and poplars (depending on location and seed sources), spruce, and finally black spruce after a couple of hundred years. Most wildlife thrives best in the early seral stages following fire, not just moose. Moose do well for a couple of decades. Hot fires are the best; the ones that eliminate that moss.
Interestingly, when I was first working in Alaska, it was thought that caribou needed the old growth forests. Since then, the value of fire, even for caribou has become better understood.
When I first worked in Delta, the “Gerstle River burn” was one of our moose count areas. There were lots of moose there at that time. The black spruce forests around it were pretty much devoid of moose, by comparison. Today, it’s not worth counting moose there. In the 30 or so years since the fire, it has become of little value to them. Black spruce are becoming more common.
From my perspective, a variegated landscape is one in which there are forest stands of many ages. I see this mainly as a result of natural fire starts, but potentially prescribed fire as well.
The fire management task is increasingly complex as Alaska is becoming “ruralified.” Fire managers naturally want to protect remote dwellings, but at what expense to the state or federal budgets? And at what expense to ecosystem diversity? I know this is a very personal situation for you and others with cabins in remote Alaska – and I would never, ever want to see anyone’s home or prized cabin burn. But these assets do modify the way in which fires are managed. Areas in which fires ought to be allowed to burn are sometimes aggressively protected because of cabins. Right or wrong, it is a fact.
Mark, amigo, this may be one more place we have to agree to disagree. I just don’t like black spruce. I’ve had the little twigs down my neck one too many times as I’ve wiggled through thick stands. <grin>
Previous: Just a note on "ecosystem diversity" bushrat Mar 09 2006
Next: David, we agree for the most part bushrat Mar 10 2006
 Message Thread:
|
