4 ms·

One really notices that old untouched forests are pretty much impassable on foot. There are no footpaths, the undergrowth is both dense but also strong - we ar

One really notices that old untouched forests are pretty much impassable on foot. There are no footpaths, the undergrowth is both dense but also strong - we aren't talking stuff you can push aside.

lacker 2y ago
That depends on the type of tree. An old growth redwood forest, for example, will often have large areas with no trees except redwoods. The bottom ten feet of the forest, where you walk around, can be nothing except smooth vertical trunks, with a thick covering of needles on the ground. No undergrowth at all, because the bottom of the forest lives in permanent shade, and the redwoods change the chemical balance of the soil in a way that makes it hard for other plants to grow.
throwup238 2y ago
That depends on the exact type of forest. The PNW is very wet so fire don’t clear the underbrush but in the South West, that growth only has a few decades to build up before its burned away.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Of course you have to match the management to the local environment, I think that's a pretty well understood concept among the people who do that management these days.
bluGill 2y ago
That is NOT a natural situation in general. Forests in North America normally have regular small fires that clear out that undergrowth. Often the natives would light fires as well every year. However with misguided fire policy those fires have not existed for a long time and now any fire will take out the whole forest. Each forest is different. The above is a general guideline, but consult a proper forester for information on any particular forest and what the natural state should be!
- rtkwe 2y ago
  There are many parts of the PNW that get enough rain yearly to qualify as a rain forest so naturally fires are going to be pretty rare in those areas. It'll rarely get ~~wet~~ dry enough to burn.
  - jesseendahl 2y ago
    You mean rarely dry enough to burn, right?
    - randomdata 2y ago
      Depends on what it is wet with, I suppose.
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      (post edit) What ever do you mean? It doesn't look like anything to me... Of course that's what I meant though.
- throwup238 2y ago
  You're thinking of forests in California and the rest of the Southwest Many (most?) PNW forests sit on very deep peatlands. When they burn, it's a catastrophic release of captured carbon like the fires Canada has been experiencing over the last few years. Once those fires start, it becomes a vicious cycle of fire drying out deeper peat which burns the next fire season, sometimes smoldering underground for years before burning out.
- bparsons 2y ago
  Temperate rainforests are different. They have very small spot fires from lightning, but the underlying foliage generally never burns. Fungi does the work of clearing out the dead material.
magneticnorth 2y ago
Huh, I had noticed much the opposite. Second growth forests that have been left untouched for 20 or more years are complete snarls. Young trees are more likely to fall down in a storm, and the open canopy lets in enough sun that you get all kinds of dense undergrowth amid the fallen trees. But the PNW old growth forests have such a dark tree canopy that not much other than moss and ferns grow below. The 1000+ year old trees rarely fall down, so you don't have as much fallen logs, either. It's a pretty incredible experience to walk through a mossy forest of giants like that.
aziaziazi 2y ago
Pristine forests in central Africa are the opposite of that.
patall 2y ago
Why would there be no footpaths, where do all the deer, moose, foxes, wolves and lynx go? I am always 'surprised' how many such trails exist in any kind of surrounding. Sure, its often difficult to follow, but that's because we are not used to them anymore.

One really notices that old untouched forests are pretty much impassable on foot. There are no footpaths, the undergrowth is both dense but also strong - we aren't talking stuff you can push aside.

lacker 2y ago

That depends on the type of tree. An old growth redwood forest, for example, will often have large areas with no trees except redwoods. The bottom ten feet of the forest, where you walk around, can be nothing except smooth vertical trunks, with a thick covering of needles on the ground. No undergrowth at all, because the bottom of the forest lives in permanent shade, and the redwoods change the chemical balance of the soil in a way that makes it hard for other plants to grow.

throwup238 2y ago

That depends on the exact type of forest. The PNW is very wet so fire don’t clear the underbrush but in the South West, that growth only has a few decades to build up before its burned away.

rtkwe 2y ago
Of course you have to match the management to the local environment, I think that's a pretty well understood concept among the people who do that management these days.

bluGill 2y ago

That is NOT a natural situation in general. Forests in North America normally have regular small fires that clear out that undergrowth. Often the natives would light fires as well every year. However with misguided fire policy those fires have not existed for a long time and now any fire will take out the whole forest. Each forest is different. The above is a general guideline, but consult a proper forester for information on any particular forest and what the natural state should be!

rtkwe 2y ago
There are many parts of the PNW that get enough rain yearly to qualify as a rain forest so naturally fires are going to be pretty rare in those areas. It'll rarely get ~~wet~~ dry enough to burn.
- jesseendahl 2y ago
  You mean rarely dry enough to burn, right?
  - randomdata 2y ago
    Depends on what it is wet with, I suppose.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    (post edit) What ever do you mean? It doesn't look like anything to me... Of course that's what I meant though.
throwup238 2y ago
You're thinking of forests in California and the rest of the Southwest Many (most?) PNW forests sit on very deep peatlands. When they burn, it's a catastrophic release of captured carbon like the fires Canada has been experiencing over the last few years. Once those fires start, it becomes a vicious cycle of fire drying out deeper peat which burns the next fire season, sometimes smoldering underground for years before burning out.
bparsons 2y ago
Temperate rainforests are different. They have very small spot fires from lightning, but the underlying foliage generally never burns. Fungi does the work of clearing out the dead material.

magneticnorth 2y ago

Huh, I had noticed much the opposite. Second growth forests that have been left untouched for 20 or more years are complete snarls. Young trees are more likely to fall down in a storm, and the open canopy lets in enough sun that you get all kinds of dense undergrowth amid the fallen trees. But the PNW old growth forests have such a dark tree canopy that not much other than moss and ferns grow below. The 1000+ year old trees rarely fall down, so you don't have as much fallen logs, either. It's a pretty incredible experience to walk through a mossy forest of giants like that.

aziaziazi 2y ago

Pristine forests in central Africa are the opposite of that.

patall 2y ago

Why would there be no footpaths, where do all the deer, moose, foxes, wolves and lynx go? I am always 'surprised' how many such trails exist in any kind of surrounding. Sure, its often difficult to follow, but that's because we are not used to them anymore.