Old Growth

[logged in]

I've been thinking about old growth lately and whether the forests we see today really reflect what should be out there. On one hand, some of these trees feel like natural oddballs and isolated giants that managed to survive when, by all rights, storms, disease, or age should've taken them down and put their matter back into the system years ago.

On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if there ought to be more old growth standing than what we currently have. Not just for biodiversity and preservation's sake, but also because there's something about the sheer look and presence of those giants that adds to the landscape in a way younger stands just don't.

What'd you all think, have natural cycles and human activity tipped the balance more than we realize?

 

[40abbeyroad]

Great point! those big old trees really make a forest feel special. I think people have changed things a lot, like cutting trees and building on land. Nature still does its part, but we've made changes that make old forests harder to find. When you see one, it feels like something really rare and valuable.

 

[TheWoodPecker]

I'd say human activity has tipped the scales way more than natural cycles ever did. Storms and disease knock some down, sure, but logging wiped out most of what would've become true old growth. What we see now is more like remnants than a natural balance