A rich mesic northern hardwood forest (beech, birch, maple) can go 500 years without a stand-replacing fire or storm under historic circumstances. The flora of this forest (without accounting for human alterations of climate and species) are well-adapted to long periods between successional resets, or when mature trees die and young trees compete for that canopy opening. However, there are other forest types in Massachusetts that are prone to more frequent disturbance, notably our oak-pine communities. Our varied forests, wetlands, heathlands, and grassland habitats along with the multitude of natural communities they support locally grow upon soils that were formed tens of thousands of years ago by a legacy of geologic processes and glaciation. Within this diversity of habitat conditions, our full suite of native wildlife, from soil microbes to overstory trees, has thrived since the glaciers retreated. Each habitat relies on another and no single type can replace the ecological services provided by all.
Today, the effects of climate change, human commerce, land development/parcelization, and unsustainable land-use practices are directly responsible for the unnatural decline of our native tree species and the ecosystems they are intrinsically part of. While the mechanisms of the natural world possess the ability to reach equilibrium on their own, does the timeframe and cost to our native diversity justify pursuing this path? The path of herd immunity takes too long and kills too many. Take for example American chestnut, which succumbed to an exotic fungal blight, imported by humans, in the early part of the 1900s. One is hard pressed to find anything besides stump sprouts a century later, which demonstrates that natural resistance isn’t something to be relied upon, especially in the short term.
Habitat diversity equals species diversity, which is crucial for long term ecological integrity and climate resilience. There are many places in Massachusetts where passive management, i.e. no active cutting or treatment, is appropriate. But, when determining where those places should be, one must first spend time identifying potential concerns impacting a specific piece of land not only now but in the projected future. Stewardship of the land looks at each site individually to account for the uniqueness of parent material, species composition, historic land use, and current and future concerns in order to maintain that land as functionally intact as possible.
A recent paper advocating for proforestation (Moomaw, Masino, Faison, 2019) too often looks at the issue globally while the activists promoting it interpret it as hyper local. To take a global perspective and apply it locally will inherently be lacking in resolution.
The paper cites an often-quoted study, which concludes that “stands managed with reduced harvest frequency and increased structural retention sequester more carbon than more intensively managed stands.” (Nunery & Keeton, 2010). Recently, Keeton has spoken publicly (The Science of Carbon Forestry, Forest Stewards Guild, 2021, YouTube) about the limitations of his study and how its misinterpretation is used to the detriment of climate resiliency. In Keeton’s own words, the models used then did not account for disturbances, climate change, invasive species, loss of foundation species, variation in land-use or forest management history, did not control for site quality, and did not include the substitution effects of replacing energy-intensive products like concrete and steel with forest-derived products like cross-laminated timber.
The proforestation argument claims “a differentiation between production forests and natural forest ecosystems would garner public support for a forest industry with higher value products and a renewed focus on reducing natural resource use.” Again, this is a misleading global view when applied to Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, a majority privately owned landscape, we have both. Land can be both managed and natural. The best stewards work intelligently with the land, not against it. I’d argue that recognizing this fact would garner true public support for our local forest industry.
In Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach (Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002) we read: “Allocating land to either reserves or commodity production has been the traditional approach to resolving disputes over management of forest resources. Continued dependence upon simplistic land allocation approaches will result in further losses of biodiversity as populations of many species are reduced or eliminated from matrix lands.“
Our diverse and complex ecology needs diverse and complex solutions. It’s beyond time we begin to work together rather than vilifying one another. As we further the divide, we get further from a true solution.
Kate Lindroos Conlin is a resident of Buckland. She independently manages societyforforeststewardship.org.