3 ms·
We make it too easy for the bugs: a) Monocultures of trees originally grown in higher altitudes with high water demands make it easy for the bark beetles to th
by myshpa 3y ago
We make it too easy for the bugs:
a) Monocultures of trees originally grown in higher altitudes with high water demands make it easy for the bark beetles to thrive (esp. in this warming climate).
b) Additionally, these monocultures usually lack multiple levels of vegetation, allowing wind to pass through (it should go over) and further drying the land, harming the trees and creating a favorable environment for the beetles.
c) We've deforested the countryside so that only small forest areas remain, with large clearings, enabling the wind in again. Thanks to this the forests are losing their ability to hold water and produce new rains, worsening the drought conditions.
d) The removal of dead wood and litter further exacerbates the drying and destroys biodiversity, making the conditions even more suitable for the bark beetles to infest.
e) Furthermore, we tend to prioritize the felling of the strongest and biggest trees, with deep roots, weakening the overall resilience of the forest.
f) Instead of letting the trees mature with deep roots, we cut down the plantations when they're only 40 years old (youngsters).
g) The spruce and pine monocultures are the most susceptible to destruction by beetles, and when they're felled and sold as round wood abroad, the cycle continues with the replanting of the same type of forest.
- crickey 3y agoIts not really an issue, or only problem for humans. Bugs will kill the trees, consume the dead wood and fertilize the soil. Bio diversity will come back
- myshpa 3y agoNo, the dead wood will get sold, the land will be cleared (they have special machinery now which destroys even large stumps that makes forest ground look like a crop field), burn or take away the dead wood and leave only the bare land. Then they'll plant the same monoculture again. It may be different in (some) reservations, but this is the common approach.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- paganel 3y agoMention should also be made of a restrained habitat for birds that could have eaten those bugs. The large clearings could have worked in the existing forests’ advantage, if they would have been left alone (so to speak) and had wild grasses/plants been allowed to grow there. As things stand right now most of the Western European “wild” habitat is manicured to hell and back, it feels like one is visiting a giant orangerie instead of nature itself. Things are a little better in that regard over here in Eastern Europe, but rapid societal development (lots more paved roads, people having money for vacation houses out in the “wilderness”, increased tourism) are putting all that in danger.
- Tade0 3y agoMy friend has a property at the very edge of the city and is happy to have a "forest" behind his backyard. I went there to find nothing else than a pine plantation. No a single bird or any other animal for that matter there - it's essentially a tall lawn.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoI found this to be true of many "forests" in parks in Germany while living there. Felt absolutely bizarre. The old airport in Munich got turned into a park, some parts are very cool, but there's this one area where they planted a bunch of trees...in an extremely precise grid structure. It's just so weird to see, like why would you do that? Like a stereotype of German culture brought to life. One example at the park: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4G2Wg2BHgfiZkaxe7 https://maps.app.goo.gl/4G2Wg2BHgfiZkaxe7 Though you can see some other areas where they did the same thing.
- hutzlibu 3y agoIf you want old forests, you have to go to the mountains. Anyplace steep enough, to hinder easy woodcutting. In those places you find the remains of real forest. But things are changing, there is actually a new diverse forest growing, where those monoculture tree plantations have been. It will just take some time and hopefully the forests gets that time, before monocultures come into fashion again..
- steve_adams_86 3y agoIt's the same here in British Columbia. Most people here have no idea that a vast bulk of our forests are in fact second or third generation since we began managing forests. They're not especially vibrant with life, and their diversity is remarkably low. If you live near it, it's virtually guaranteed that it's not a natural forest. The amount of truly old, "ancient" (250 or 400 years +, depending on stand-replacing disturbance) forest in our vast province is minuscule: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/stewardship/old-growth-forests/old-growth-maps/map4_ancient_forests_letter.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-...
- 3y ago
- hfgjdssaghj 3y agoThe exact same pattern has covered enormous areas of Sweden, where industrial-scale timber production, often for nothing more than wood-chips, has replaced diverse old-woodland area. The ancient forests have historically contained bark beetles - but crucially also their natural predators in the abundant biodiversity of their environment, including predatory insects and birds that feed on both the larva and the beetles. The new monoculture plantations are arid deserts where bark beetles thrive without competition or natural checks. Not to speak of the tinder these dry and wind-swept forests provide, when fires start. They are very profitable for their corporate owners though.