Which supports more life - a living tree or a dead one?
- Thread starter Stew
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, We're having our annual Winter Moot and we'd love you to come. PLEASE LOOK HERE to secure your place and get more information.
For forum threads CLICK HERE
Thats a tough one ,, I would think a Dead one because of all the fungi and insects that move in to break it down ,, I could well be wrong though never really thought about it before
live trees give oxygen in return for co2, but as has been said you get multitude's of bugs that feed on the decaying wood/mould on dead wood and thos bugs feed other birds/small mamall's etc. Live trees shade the ground, there roots stabilise the ground to prevent erosion and creation of desert, provide cover, living and breeding spaces for wildlife; leaf mould is full of good stuff for growth. dead wood gives off green house gase's (better to burn it as a renewable coppice fuel and get some heat output of it as well 
). It astonishes me just how much brash and small poles are left to rot, even big tree trubk's 
Historically deforestation has been associated with decline in land quality, even creation of barren land or desert. To answere the original question which support's more life? I dont know
). It astonishes me just how much brash and small poles are left to rot, even big tree trubk's Historically deforestation has been associated with decline in land quality, even creation of barren land or desert. To answere the original question which support's more life? I dont know
In his book 'How to make a Wildlife Garden' Chris Baines gives the following figures for associated insect species for live native trees:
Sliver Birch - 229 species
Downie Birch - 200+ species
Hawthorn - 149 species
Alder - 90 species
Aspen - 90 species
Rowan - 28 species
Oak - 284 species
Beech - 64 species
Ash - 41 species
White Willow - 200+ species
Small leaved Lime - 31 species
I don't have figures for dead wood. However, The Forestry Commission have a policy of leaving standing dead wood when the fell trees due to its importance for wildlife species.
Sliver Birch - 229 species
Downie Birch - 200+ species
Hawthorn - 149 species
Alder - 90 species
Aspen - 90 species
Rowan - 28 species
Oak - 284 species
Beech - 64 species
Ash - 41 species
White Willow - 200+ species
Small leaved Lime - 31 species
I don't have figures for dead wood. However, The Forestry Commission have a policy of leaving standing dead wood when the fell trees due to its importance for wildlife species.
In his book 'How to make a Wildlife Garden' Chris Baines gives the following figures for associated insect species for live native trees:
Sliver Birch - 229 species
Downie Birch - 200+ species
Hawthorn - 149 species
Alder - 90 species
Aspen - 90 species
Rowan - 28 species
Oak - 284 species
Beech - 64 species
Ash - 41 species
White Willow - 200+ species
Small leaved Lime - 31 species
I don't have figures for dead wood. However, The Forestry Commission have a policy of leaving standing dead wood when the fell trees due to its importance for wildlife species.
Now those are interesting figures! I don't suppose it has details on Ivy at all does it?
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Are you asking total quantity or diversity? A young sycamore supports as much life as a young oak, its just that they are mostly aphids. The blue tits are as happy eating the aphids as the red data list beetle larvae on an ancient oak.
If you are looking for diversity the tree that supports the most and for the longest time is an ancient hollow pollard tree. There is lots of dead wood in the centre for the rare beatles, flies etc, a very stable bark surface suitable for rare lichen, lots of nooks and cranies for all manner of creepy crawlies to hide out in and still all the green leaves that a young tree would have so all maner of bugs feeding there too.
The dead tree results in a short feeding frenzy for the dead wood specialists but 10-15 years and it's gone, the old pollards can go 800 years.
If you are looking for diversity the tree that supports the most and for the longest time is an ancient hollow pollard tree. There is lots of dead wood in the centre for the rare beatles, flies etc, a very stable bark surface suitable for rare lichen, lots of nooks and cranies for all manner of creepy crawlies to hide out in and still all the green leaves that a young tree would have so all maner of bugs feeding there too.
The dead tree results in a short feeding frenzy for the dead wood specialists but 10-15 years and it's gone, the old pollards can go 800 years.
Research by Terry Erwin in the tropics of Peru in the Tambopata Reserve is pretty interesting. A single living tree typically yields 17,000 individuals. A single tree sampled yielded 26 genera and 48 species of ants alone. That's equal to the entire ant fauna of the British Isles.
It astonishes me just how much brash and small poles are left to rot, even big tree trubk's
Many reasons,
1. returns nutriments to the soil
2. prevents soil erosion
3. Provides protect for seedlings
4. Provides habitat
many more reasons besides
Has to be the top answer, multi-purpose habitats...
Both. Either.
That's why I was so vague in my question.
if we look at holistically.... percentage wise its more beneficial to have more living trees than dead ones.
Its an unfair way of looking at it really - a dead tree may be host to many organisms, but a living tree regulates the atmosphere. One tree alone may host 17000 organisms when dead but only be able to give an insignificant amount of oxygen/carbon dioxide when alive, This makes it look less important alive, but only because we aren't valuing the trees contribution as part of a whole. A flood is made of single raindrops and likewise the atmosphere is contributed to by single trees, but we must consider them as part of a whole - a forest, not as individuals, to value them in these terms.
Its an unfair way of looking at it really - a dead tree may be host to many organisms, but a living tree regulates the atmosphere. One tree alone may host 17000 organisms when dead but only be able to give an insignificant amount of oxygen/carbon dioxide when alive, This makes it look less important alive, but only because we aren't valuing the trees contribution as part of a whole. A flood is made of single raindrops and likewise the atmosphere is contributed to by single trees, but we must consider them as part of a whole - a forest, not as individuals, to value them in these terms.
O
OregonDave
Guest
I don't have an answer, but this brilliant question and replies have already altered my perspective.
Thank you.
OD
Thank you.
OD
Another thing worth thinking about is the annual leaf drop of deciduous trees. This builds up a very rich layer of soil in the forest floor that is home to literally millions of nematodes plus many other organisms. Dead trees only drop their leaves once. So if you think in terms of time, dead trees are only temporary habitats compared to living trees. By the same token, dead trees provide critical habitat that living trees often do not. They are both important to the function of any forest ecosystem.
So if you think in terms of time, dead trees are only temporary habitats compared to living trees. By the same token, dead trees provide critical habitat that living trees often do not. They are both important to the function of any forest ecosystem.
Don't forget that they only pump out oxygen when they are in leaf. Watching An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore shows the step in the graph of CO2 levels going up and down, up and down, every year. The trend is towards an increase in CO2 overall, but the stepping up and down is due to the pumping out of oxygen when in leaf and then the lack of that when the trees shed their leaves in autumn and winter. Don't forget that the land mass of the world is mainly in the northern hemisphere, hence the massive impact shown in annual CO2 levels. If you haven't seen the film, it is worth taking a look, it is an eye opener as much as this thread, which is a brilliant question by the way!
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
That film is on my "to watch" list. Interesting theory about CO2 levels. I would be surprised if trees in the Northern hemisphere had such a marked effect baring in mind the tropics are in leaf all year and the southern hemisphere is summer when Northern is dormant. Also in terms of all the photosynthesis going on on the planet I would have thought the oceans played a far bigger part than the small percentage of land under tree cover. Even in the Northern hemisphere there are far more conifers than deciduous though the conifers photosynthesize less in winter too.
Interesting that I did not think about trees supporting life by changing CO2 into oxygen but it is a good point, at least supporting animal life. I think the role of trees in saving the planet from CO2 induced global warming is way overplayed. It is dangerous to do so because lots of companies clear their consciences by "carbon offsetting". Burn some fossil fuel creating Xkg of CO2 and plant Y trees which will absorb Xkg of CO2 during their lifespan. The problem with the theory is that when that tree dies it will release all its carbon back to the atmosphere, whether it rots, is burnt or even made into furniture that lasts 1000 years, CO2 is a genie which once out of the bag is very difficult to put back in. We have not found a way of storing it underground or turning it back into coal or oil. Now if you use wooden furniture instead of plastic or burn wood instead of oil that reduces the rate at which we release the stored CO2.
Also a deciduous tree supports more life than a conifer. Native trees support more life than non-natives.
Dead deciduous trees are an important habitat. In conservation woodlands dead trees, fallen trees and log piles are an important part of the woodland ecology.
Native deciduous veteran trees are probably the most important habitat as they combine both living and dead elements.
Although England has the lowest amount of woodland in Europe it has one of the highest amount of veteran trees.
My answer to the question is a half dead tree!
Dead deciduous trees are an important habitat. In conservation woodlands dead trees, fallen trees and log piles are an important part of the woodland ecology.
Native deciduous veteran trees are probably the most important habitat as they combine both living and dead elements.
Although England has the lowest amount of woodland in Europe it has one of the highest amount of veteran trees.
My answer to the question is a half dead tree!
Supposedly the polution in the seas is affecting the algae that does transform CO2 into oxygen, therefore the problem is again getting worse. And you are right, the seas do transform a much larger amount of CO2 into oxygen than the trees do, well, when thay aren't polluted by man anyway! And trees will have a larger effect than most people think. the rate that forestry is being reduced is gonna have lasting effects on the planets climate.
After the World Trade Centre and Pentagon was hit, on September 11th 2001 just in case anybody missed that one (!), the skies were clear of aircraft and the temperature was changed due to that clear air. The day time temperatures were higher, the night time temperatures were lower, all against the average temperatures recorded at that time of year over the years. Bit of a coincidence? The trees were given a break at that time! There is no doubting that the carbon emmissions are having a negative efect on the planet, no idea why the big wigs at the top won't open their eyes and do something about it!
i wonder how long it would take the planet to recover from our impact on the world if we all suddenly dissapeared tomorrow and the planet was left to its' own devices. I reckon for the most part it wouldn't take too long, where the problems would show would be the likes of large power stations, especially the nuclear power stations, and also the likes of Chernobyls' reactor number four.
After the World Trade Centre and Pentagon was hit, on September 11th 2001 just in case anybody missed that one (!), the skies were clear of aircraft and the temperature was changed due to that clear air. The day time temperatures were higher, the night time temperatures were lower, all against the average temperatures recorded at that time of year over the years. Bit of a coincidence? The trees were given a break at that time! There is no doubting that the carbon emmissions are having a negative efect on the planet, no idea why the big wigs at the top won't open their eyes and do something about it!
i wonder how long it would take the planet to recover from our impact on the world if we all suddenly dissapeared tomorrow and the planet was left to its' own devices. I reckon for the most part it wouldn't take too long, where the problems would show would be the likes of large power stations, especially the nuclear power stations, and also the likes of Chernobyls' reactor number four.
The seasonal variation in the Keeling Curve is really rather pronounced, and lines up perfectly with seasonal growth patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. While it's entirely true that the oceans and tropical forests play a greater total role in CO2 exchange, they do not have as much seasonal variation. So the seasonal variation is driven by growth in Northern Hemisphere forests, even though they do not play a particularly large role in the total carbon cycle.
That's the one. It's pretty amazing, as Al Gore says, it is like the earth breathes in and out once per year.
