What supports more life - a dead tree lying down or a dead tree standing up?
- Thread starter Stew
- Start date
Also depends on which type of tree it is but assuming the same, I'd go with lying down too
cheers,
alan
cheers,
alan
I'd think it depend is the tree was felled or fell down of its own accord:
It can take well over forty years for a fallen Scots pine to decompose, due to the high resin content, and snags can last as long as 100 years.
took this from this site
A dead standing tree can stay up for a long time before it eventually falls down. A standing dead tree has more life in it than a live one, so if the dead tree (snag) can last up to a hundred years standing and then up to 40 years down, that works out at 140 years span to about 40 years if the tree is felled and left to decompose.
I'd say there will be more life in the dead tree after 140 years than after 40!
It can take well over forty years for a fallen Scots pine to decompose, due to the high resin content, and snags can last as long as 100 years.
took this from this site
A dead standing tree can stay up for a long time before it eventually falls down. A standing dead tree has more life in it than a live one, so if the dead tree (snag) can last up to a hundred years standing and then up to 40 years down, that works out at 140 years span to about 40 years if the tree is felled and left to decompose.
I'd say there will be more life in the dead tree after 140 years than after 40!
A fallen dead tree has its own little ecosystem found only on fallen tree. A standing one is just the shape of things to come.
Interesting point about the felled tree jojo, that adds a nice twist to the tale.
Would the ecosystem then be different? A different range of life??Kinda like the bushmen in Australia burning areas of scrubland to promote new growth and biodiversity so everything ain't the same?
Maybe felling has this effect?
Interesting point about the felled tree jojo, that adds a nice twist to the tale.
Would the ecosystem then be different? A different range of life??Kinda like the bushmen in Australia burning areas of scrubland to promote new growth and biodiversity so everything ain't the same?
Maybe felling has this effect?
Stew
This is a really good question, and a lot more complicated than it may seem. I think one major factor would be whether the fallen tree has recently fallen (wind damage, human intervention), or is it a collapsed snag (i.e. long dead)? jojo's point about how long the tree supports life is an important one.
Sapper is probably also right about fallen trees being more accessible, but one thing to bear in mind is the fact that standing trees offer habitats for many rare vertebrates such as bats. Many birds of prey also find snags make good perches from where to spot prey. Bearing in mind the usefulness of a snag for this purpose might depend on whether it was found in the middle of a dense forest, or on otherwise open heathland?
As a rule of thumb there are relationships between habitat structural diversity (3-dimensional structure e.g. tree heights, canopy forms, ground surface) and biodiversity. This is because 3-D structure creates many different micro-climatic conditions that allow niche species to exist.
Your question raises lots more questions such as how do you define 'more' life? Do you mean greater biomass (i.e. does a large animal count as being 'more' than several smaller ones, or is it the other way round?), or is diversity important (in which case does one individual from a rare species count as 'more' than several individuals from very common species?)
The mind boggles.
This is a really good question, and a lot more complicated than it may seem. I think one major factor would be whether the fallen tree has recently fallen (wind damage, human intervention), or is it a collapsed snag (i.e. long dead)? jojo's point about how long the tree supports life is an important one.
Sapper is probably also right about fallen trees being more accessible, but one thing to bear in mind is the fact that standing trees offer habitats for many rare vertebrates such as bats. Many birds of prey also find snags make good perches from where to spot prey. Bearing in mind the usefulness of a snag for this purpose might depend on whether it was found in the middle of a dense forest, or on otherwise open heathland?
As a rule of thumb there are relationships between habitat structural diversity (3-dimensional structure e.g. tree heights, canopy forms, ground surface) and biodiversity. This is because 3-D structure creates many different micro-climatic conditions that allow niche species to exist.
Your question raises lots more questions such as how do you define 'more' life? Do you mean greater biomass (i.e. does a large animal count as being 'more' than several smaller ones, or is it the other way round?), or is diversity important (in which case does one individual from a rare species count as 'more' than several individuals from very common species?)
The mind boggles.
This is a fascinating question, one I don't know the answer to but it has a major bearing on how we impact the area we are staying in.
I've taken to transporting fuel to most of the places I go these days, largely because I think stripping a forest of its dead wood is not really a sustainable practice in many places.
The times stated above for decomposition just reinforce that impression.
Of course the flip side of that argument is that the fuel is being sourced somewhere else and transported which impacts the environment in other ways.
My conscience tells me that at least this sourcing is usually done in a managed way but it is still not ideal.
It would be a great shame if our own pursuit of a natural experience was causing lasting damage to the few places that we can still enjoy such an experience.
I've taken to transporting fuel to most of the places I go these days, largely because I think stripping a forest of its dead wood is not really a sustainable practice in many places.
The times stated above for decomposition just reinforce that impression.
Of course the flip side of that argument is that the fuel is being sourced somewhere else and transported which impacts the environment in other ways.
My conscience tells me that at least this sourcing is usually done in a managed way but it is still not ideal.
It would be a great shame if our own pursuit of a natural experience was causing lasting damage to the few places that we can still enjoy such an experience.
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
It depends whether we mean "most life" as simply the largest biomass of living organisms. If that's the case a quick rotting species like birch falling onto damp woodland soil will decompose rapidly in an orgy of life. A dead standing oak will decompose very slowly but at any one time will be supporting a much smaller biomass than the rotting birch of the same size.
What most folk are interested in when they ask about what life a tree supports is diversity. So for instance conservationists in the UK love oak and dislike sycamore. An oak typically supports around 250 species where the sycamore only a few dozen. The sycamore still supports a similar quantity of life, it's just that most of that volume is made up of a few species such as green fly. Blue tits probably don't mind whether they eat green fly or ultra rare red data book beetles.
Another factor is what is common and what is rare in terms of habitats. All dead wood whether standing or fallen is less common in the UK than in a wild woodland but probably more common than it was in the intensively managed woods of the last few centuries. There is still however a public perception that dead wood is "untidy". There will be many species that can only live on either standing or fallen dead wood so good woodland management for wildlife would keep some standing and some lying deadwood. Large diameter standing deadwood is rarer and so will generally support rarer specialist fauna than small diameter fallen deadwood.
One of the rarest and most species diverse habitats is a hollow old tree that has provided continuity of standing dead wood habitat for centuries. Pollards are particularly good at this and in the UK we have a higher number of these special old trees than the rest of Europe put together.
So back to the original question and generalising slightly. If the two trees were same size and species in the same woodland then the fallen one would provide habitat for a larger number of commoner species for a shorter time. The standing one provides habitat for a smaller number of rarer species for a longer time.
And on to Wayland's valid and interesting point about sustainability. Of course this is a question of balance, if 500 bushcrafters a year visited a small area of Caledonian pine woodland and stripped the deadwood it would be very harmful to the flora and fauna. 500 folk could visit a far more productive couple of acres of lowland deciduous woodland and each make a fire and still the woodland would be producing much more than they were using. Folk tend to notice when trees get cut down but not when they grow up.
What most folk are interested in when they ask about what life a tree supports is diversity. So for instance conservationists in the UK love oak and dislike sycamore. An oak typically supports around 250 species where the sycamore only a few dozen. The sycamore still supports a similar quantity of life, it's just that most of that volume is made up of a few species such as green fly. Blue tits probably don't mind whether they eat green fly or ultra rare red data book beetles.
Another factor is what is common and what is rare in terms of habitats. All dead wood whether standing or fallen is less common in the UK than in a wild woodland but probably more common than it was in the intensively managed woods of the last few centuries. There is still however a public perception that dead wood is "untidy". There will be many species that can only live on either standing or fallen dead wood so good woodland management for wildlife would keep some standing and some lying deadwood. Large diameter standing deadwood is rarer and so will generally support rarer specialist fauna than small diameter fallen deadwood.
One of the rarest and most species diverse habitats is a hollow old tree that has provided continuity of standing dead wood habitat for centuries. Pollards are particularly good at this and in the UK we have a higher number of these special old trees than the rest of Europe put together.
So back to the original question and generalising slightly. If the two trees were same size and species in the same woodland then the fallen one would provide habitat for a larger number of commoner species for a shorter time. The standing one provides habitat for a smaller number of rarer species for a longer time.
And on to Wayland's valid and interesting point about sustainability. Of course this is a question of balance, if 500 bushcrafters a year visited a small area of Caledonian pine woodland and stripped the deadwood it would be very harmful to the flora and fauna. 500 folk could visit a far more productive couple of acres of lowland deciduous woodland and each make a fire and still the woodland would be producing much more than they were using. Folk tend to notice when trees get cut down but not when they grow up.
well technicly most of a living tree has already died. the xylem vessals (wood) is not living tissue, the only living part is the cambium and phloem in the bark 
pete
pete
what about a dead tree leaning against something in a realy lazy manner with a bad attitude to boot.
