What is Ecological Forestry?

An article on ecological forestry practices in the eastern USA caught my attention and stimulated questions. Want to share a few things about the topic of ecological forestry.

I've been developing a similar forestry practice and found this article refreshing and supportive. Previous blog posts on this site cover a range of similar topics.

The term 'ecological forestry' is vague. It appears there have been some talk in the academic and professional circles regarding this distinct term, implying a distinct methodology, since the 1940's.

The article states many things well, describing how professional forestry practices in the eastern forests are changing to account for more than just growing lumber. This is great news! "This approach is part of a growing trend in American forestry. Like Mr. Turner and Ms. French, more and more landowners, foresters, and overseers of public lands are trying to manage forests with the aim of promoting the values of ecology,... and not simply the economics of harvesting timber."

Appreciated the article's perspective on how a forest management business in New Hampshire, Meadowsend Consulting Co. and owners Jeremy Turner and Laura French, are practicing ecological forestry. The gentle approach of ecological forestry results in greater productivity, health, and resilience.  

Their website is interesting and appreciate much of the content, but especially their insistence on nurturing people's connections with land and ecosystems. Thank you for your offerings and support Jeremy & Laura.

This emergence of a new popularity of management called 'ecological forestry' in the far eastern forest is a sign of what's to come to Missouri. The forests to the far east were settled several hundred years before Missouri.

The virgin forest was cut, and instantly became something else. That something else has responded to the deluge of cutting that has continued since, mostly unabated. When the virgin timber was cut, some areas were quickly converted to open fields for agriculture.

Livestock were generally added to the woodlands and lots of native plant species were chewed away within decades. Whenever trees again got large enough to cut they have been removed, in a cycle that is now around 200 years old in Missouri, and 400 years old in the old British colonies.

As the forests get further away from a balanced ecosystem, the remaining species become more vulnerable. Each cut is a significant disturbance that throws the ecosystems out of balance with the intensity of a hurricane or tornado.

Industrial forestry methods today largely use forest thinning to achieve an optimal spacing between trees. The focus is primarily on spacing of quality trees. This narrow focus ignores many aspects of ecosystems and generally guides the system out-of-balance.

Ignoring other aspects of the ecology usually increases and intensifies unintended consequences.

Human tending with tools such as burning have been removed from the eastern forests as well, further disrupting balance. The forest that we see today is a long ways from balance.

The system is always striving for homeostasis.

The ecosystem seeks a balance that was built with a biodiversity that is now missing. This is where we see many contemporary issues becoming crisis. For instance, invasive species are exploiting much of the landscape by filling niches once provided by species that have been lost. And in some cases, species are more vulnerable to diseases because the species that once regulated the disease is now missing.

The traditional forest management methods that largely ignore ecology have today provided us with widespread ecological devastation in the form of pest, disease, & weather related mortality that extends over large regions and also occurs on micro-scales.

We are currently dealing with a years-long, region-wide, episode of white oak mortality. The epic drought of 2012 seemed to trigger white oak mortality across much of Missouri. We are still seeing white oaks die en masse. Professionals & researchers are working on it but are scratching their heads to identify the responsible agent(s) and appropriate remedies. It's a mystery that they have been calling 'Rapid White Oak Mortality' (RWOM).

May I suggest that loss of biodiversity is a significant contributing factor. There are many other species such as sassafras, ash, and walnut that are currently under threat. If we isolate them we lose sight that they are all happening together in a large system. Could so many significant widespread health issues be a reflection of widespread health degradation?

When a client asks for sick plant diagnosis in their yard, and I notice all the plants are a little sick, I stop wasting time diagnosing each plant. We save considerable time and achieve fast & widespread results when we treat the ecosystem rather than the individual plants. This leads to an outbreak of good health and transformation that clients report back with relief and cheer.

Biodiversity offers a buffer so natural controls are in place for pests. Without biodiversity we lose natural controls. As natural controls are lost it might be similarly compared to when a person develops a chronic immunity disorder, or autoimmunity.

As ecosystems develop autoimmunity, fighting off pests & diseases becomes significantly more difficult. Some of the native organisms that were no risk when the ecosystem is in balance, may become a risk when other competing organisms are lost. If we look back to what the biodiversity was before settlement, we can see how much of a buffer has been lost. We can begin to appropriately assess the health issues for what they really are.

Here in Missouri we have the blessing of watching forest pests such as the spongy moth (gypsy moth) , emerald ash borer, spotted lanternfly, dutch elm disease, Asian longhorn beetle, etc. etc. move west, giving us some time to prepare. Many invasive pests generally get started in the east and gradually arrive to Missouri.

In my 2 decades of doing this work, the forest health issues, pests outbreaks, and invasive species ranges, have grown considerably.

Don't be discouraged though, we can nurture an ecosystem to good health to reverse this trend.

Ecological forestries popularity is a response to industrial forestry. Ecological forestry admits the shortcomings of industrial forestry and its impact on ecology by taking responsibility and acting responsibly to nurture ecosystem health. When we understand the last 500 years we are better able to properly respond today.

My approach is to visit a property and try to understand it before making decisions. On site visits in this profession, many people expect us biologist/foresters to start answering questions as soon as we get out of the vehicle. Naturally we develop standard responses that cover as many bases as we can. We are liable to generalize most things and lose grounding. My solution is to slow down when I find myself going into this 'expert state-of-mind'.

I'd rather hang out as long as I can in the not-knowing and allow the answers to arrive naturally. I want to look closely before speaking. See how the insects, birds, and other creatures are living there, because they reveal much. See the character on the trees and understand their health. See which plants make up the various plant communities and how they are distributed across the landscape. See the soil and the life it contains. Those are the answers that provide clarity and focus our attention on simple nurturance. Simple nurturing leads to improved health and ecological transformation.

But if I show up and make generalizations, I've already decided what it needs to look like and provided direction to this imaginary generalized conceptualized woodland.

In a way, I've insisted that it look like some ideal woodland that gets imposed everywhere.

In Missouri, its a common practice in industrial forestry to insist that the 'B-line' on the Gingerich stocking chart is ideal. I was trained and implemented B-Line forest management pretty much everywhere. After a few years of running a chainsaw and doing this work on-the-ground, I realized the B-line was often times too aggressive and reducing tree density that low created many unintended ecological consequences. For instance, invasive species will often have a population explosion if the canopy is opened that much. Applying one model to all the woodlands generalizes alot and ignores more

Instead of answering questions immediately, what if I witness first and then we discuss? What if we go on a journey of discovery rather than an intellectual exercise of imposing concepts? What can we lose?

The generalized concepts help us for sure, but they only take us so far. In order to go further we question the concepts. In the questions we find where deviations from concepts arise, individuality. We find that each ecosystem is a unique individual.

We find current existing conditions and respond more appropriately. Instead of insisting the site look just like the generalized concept we dreamed up, we nurture the site to it's individual potential, something we can't imagine when I first get out of the truck.

Some clients allow this, and together we go on the journey of discovery. This process asks us to slow down and ask questions instead of insisting our way onto a bunch of unknowns. This process allows us to focus and develop a relationship with the land.

We ask the land what it needs. We inspire to behave for the good of all. We become responsible care takers and nurture good health. We become more sensitive and attuned. I like to call it tuning and think of guitar strings. We tune an instrument so the strings sound good together. I tune my senses so I connect better and apply appropriate treatments.

When I am in tune my decisions arise from a place of resonance with this large biological system. We come closer and closer into coherence. The longer time we spend together the more we learn how to be in relation with each other.

What are current barriers for practicing ecological forestry in Missouri?

Honestly, alot of us professionals have been trained in the industrial methods. Alot of landowners have been as well. And rural economies are prone to getting stuck in the status quo.

In their hearts, many landowners dream of ecological forestry. Why aren't they doing it?

A major challenge to ecological restoration is economics. Sawmills prefer trees to be within a certain size range for standardizing mechanized equipment and so the industry insists on cutting small trees. We can grow trees larger than the current industrial forestry standard in Missouri. The trees aren't permitted to grow large, and that creates ecological losses.

The economic trade-off of ecological forestry is that the value is spread out over time versus the standard industrial approach of cutting aggressively once every 20-30 years to create large lump-sums of income. In ecological forestry, individual trees are harvested if they have severe health issues or after they mature. In the Missouri Ozarks, we are fortunate to have Pioneer Forest showing us the results of single-tree harvesting approach.

Loggers have so much money tied up in expensive equipment that they need to cut every tree that is worth money while they are on site. It's not cheap to even get the equipment on site, let alone use it. This is how the industry is working at the moment for the most part.

Basically, ecological forestry costs money and provides little if any 'income'. The market does not directly provide short-term incentives for ecological restoration. We live in an economic system that rewards extractions and rarely considers additions. The market is driving the ecosystems into degradation. The historic and current market approach is not a sustainable approach to ecological management.

With ecological forestry we can grow larger trees that create more value on the property. Buyers of large trees are reporting that they are getting harder to find, which drives prices up.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Missouri, Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), along with some NGO's like Quail Forever and the National Wild Turkey Federation, may offer incentive payments to offset the costs of doing ecological work. Many of the Forest Management Plans that I develop are supported by the NRCS and written to their standards. If it weren't for the NRCS, MDC, & others offering support there would be considerably less acres being impacted. Many thanks to the individuals working in these organizations to impact ecological forestry on the ground.

There are also some land trusts that are doing the difficult work of saving land from future development. The economics of a land trust are a bit mysterious to me but I see they have been used successfully to protect property in Missouri and elsewhere.

Outside of these few sources, ecological work requires individuals to invest their time and/or money, which can sometimes be a challenge. However, I often witness clients navigating through this process in various ways

Some clients not only understand the investment required but also embrace it wholeheartedly. Their enthusiasm and dedication to the process never fail to inspire me. They oftentimes get more excited than a young person buying a brand new car. They see a transformation coming and understand in essence, they are getting a new property. Many are exuberant at the opportunity to connect with the land by improving ecosystem health.

The support the above organizations provides has helped many landowners transform themselves from a form of silent ownership to active participant now engaging with the ecology on their property. Many go on to invest their own money in ecological restoration projects.

Most of what ecological forestry is saying I agree with. Accounting for other species and aspects of an ecosystem besides the lumber trees leads to better ecosystem health and resilience. That seems to largely be what ecological forestry is aiming to do.

Unfortunately ecological forestry is another ecological concept that largely ignores the human component of ecology. I don't see anywhere in the research on ecological forestry about how people were out there tending plants and managing the landscape. Leaving the humans out of forests is a huge blind spot. The great eastern forests of North America was full of people for a long time. They shaped the ecology and nurtured the plants. Any ecological concepts that omit the human role in management are concerning.

To restore the old balance, the ancient human agricultural practices that nurtured the ecosystems we inherited will need to be restored. It sounds impossible to restore the old practices. But given our technological advances and population growth it's actually simple.

And finally, when I use the term restoration it's not about restoring to pre-settlement conditions. Those conditions required thousands of years of tending and care and the rise and fall of unique cultures. Daniel Botkin's perspective that we are always going forward seems true. We can't restore an ecosystem to the same as it was. Things have changed and will never return.

The term restoration is used here to convey the restoration of ecosystem players and processes. We know we can't get it all back the way it was, but we can get some of it back. The more that an ecosystem is restored the more productive & resilient it usually becomes. It's a degree of restoration. We are doing restoration work. Ecological forestry seems to embrace this spirit.

We are blessed to do this work. Many thanks to all the people who are implementing ecological restoration practices on their properties, clients for supporting this work, and other professionals doing the work.