Thanks for the eggs to suck John.  You made an inference about a doubling of
biomass of the high production stand I gave you that is eye-rolling
nonsense.  And you still haven't got my point that whether plantations are
"bad" depends on other things than just a straight total biomass comparison.
Goodbye

> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list has been established to provide a discussion forum, and
> informati [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Foster
> Sent: Monday, 4 December 2000 06:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Old Forests Needed for Carbon Storage
>
>
> Here is a classic case of the 'argument from authority' ...I will not pull
> out my credentials just this moment because my forestry CV is
> well over ten
> pages in legal size paper....
>
> >> So if this stand was left to live for another 100 years there
> >> would be well over twice as much volume on it.
> >
> >
> >If you were a forester or a forestry ecologist you would not make this
> >statement John.  It is bunkum.  Check out a forestry yield table.  There
> >ain't nothing linear about it.  Eventually they peg out to some
> top limit -
> >and then they can decline as death becomes greater than growth.
>
> Did I say anything about linearity? You need to 'retrain' and read the
> following....I am always get retrained....
>
> The top limit could be 1000 years....and it depends on the site.
> The better
> the Site Index, the younger the culmination age of the mean annual
> increment. Now the Site Index reflects the edaphic conditions of
> the site as
> well as climate. The poorer the site, the longer it takes for the stand to
> reach what is called 'culmination age of the mean annual increment' [MAI]
> which happens to be the intersection of the mean annual increment and the
> current annual increment. This is the point where the stand has reached in
> time the maximum rate of growth. Here in BC we have no sites that
> reach the
> maximum rate of growth at 60 years.
>
> It is possible on a poor site that the culmination of MAI be beyond 120
> years as is the case here on some sites. Before  the culmination age is
> reached, the stand is reached the stand is increasing in volume.
>
> So back to your site at 60 years. If the culmination age for the
> mean annual
> increment is 120 years, which is a medium site, then it will more than
> double in volume in the next sixty years. Therefore by the time it reaches
> 160 years it will still have more than double the volume than it did at 60
> years.
>
> I should also say that it depends on the speces of tree too what
> the MAI is.
> The Douglas-fir species has a younger MAI culmination age than does
> lodgepole pine here.
>
> So what exactly was your point? You have the basic idea I think
> that growth
> rates do decline, but you need to invest some effort into
> 'retraining' if as
> you say you are a professional forester so that you can apply
> some critical
> understanding based on real forests.
>
> If I am not a forester nor a forest ecologist, why I am I training you in
> forestry? and ecology?
>