Eric Johnson said:
Most of the nutrients that are returned to the forest soil are deposited by the leaves every autumn. There isn't that much in the wood itself and as such, removing deadwood from a forest is not going to have any measurable impact on the health of the trees or the soil. A forester told me once that one lightning strike puts more nitrogen into the soil than all the trees on a woodlot combined. I don't know if that's true, but it emphasizes the fact that soils derive their health from many different sources....
Many people don't realize that you can benefit a forest by thinning it out, but it's no different than a garden. If you want healthy, vigorous vegetables in your garden, you've gotta take out the weeds and the underperforming plants. The nice thing about applying that standard to a woodlot is that instead of throwing the culled vegetation on the compost pile, you can heat your house with it.
The garden is a good analogy, though it's sometimes best thought of as a perenial garden with a much longer lifespan. Nature can and does work fine without human intervention. The main difference is that she's working on a larger, longer garden plan. We may not always agree with that plan, the same as we may sometimes not agree with our neighbor's land plans, but there is a plan in place nonetheless. The ecosystem of the understory is very complex and dynamic. One can see the cycle happening over the long-haul. I'm not against woodlot management, but it does need training and understanding of what is taking place on the land outside human intervention.
Where I live, the entire hillside of maybe 1000 acres was clearcut in the 1800's to harvest massive douglas firs for rapidly growing Seattle economy. Only a few stately trees were left growing. After that Scandanavian farmers came in an cleared out the stumps and undergrowth and planted lignonberries, elderberries, currants and strawberries on a massive family farm. This produce was shipped off to Seattle and Tacoma. By the early 1900, this farm started getting divided up amongst family members that put in houses, etc. The property continued to sub-divide and some large lots went idle as the children moved away. Nature immediately started her work first by planting low growth of salal and scotch broom (a form or pea). Then came young alders, which are kind of like tall, fast growing pea plants. Soft maples grew in the void and a few young firs. Once the alders mature, they self destruct by getting too tall and spindly (~80ft.) and fall. They rot very quickly and are full of nitrogen. This provides food for the next generation, the titans - doug fir, hemlock in our region.
Move forward to 2006 and the farm is about 50% overgrown. We have a 20 acre stand infront of us that has been deeded to land trust. It's a pretty complex ecosystem. We have some 120+ ft tall firs, decaying alders and competing soft maples. Over the long haul, the firs will win out. That's nature's garden plan over a couple centuries. In the process we're watching it become home to eagles, hawks, food source for the large pileated woodpecker, flickers etc. Eventually, left undisturbed we may get some really rare birds and animals moving in. There is a steady stream that, now that shade has returned to its banks, is hosting baby salmon. A plentiful supply of them allows high-food chain feeders (raptors, orcas, owls) to thrive. We're happy to coexist with them. Some of us are managing small woodlots, but it's also good to let nature manage some on her own. She can make a great neighbor and teacher having a few more millenia of experience.
We just moved to a house on 6 mostly-wooded and hilly acres. We would like to keep the woods healthy. Can I take the dead and fallen trees to burn, or would the land be better served if they just rotted back into the soil? Is letting the land stay natural the healthiest for the woods? Any general tips?
