Talk:Silviculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Silviculture vs. Forestry

I don't really understand how silviculture is different from forestry. Could someone who knows put in a sentence about it in the intro? The forestry article has a sentence, but it doesn't really make the difference clear, at least for me. Are they similar enough that we should think about merging? --Allen 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, forestry is a much more general term than silviculture and may include wildlife & fire management, harvesting and eco-tourism. However I'm an ecologist not a forester! Jppigott 05:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense; thanks! --Allen 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Forestry and silviculture are exactly the same thing. Modern silviculture takes care of wildlife, fire management and all the others. The articles should be joined, and the title should indicate Forestry, also callled silviculture. It is just as if you tried to make a theory about an Ear-Nose-Throat Doctor and an Otorhynolaringologist and there are numerous other examples of the same notion having english and latin names.

Afil 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree forestry "involves the science, business, art and practice of purposefully organizing, managing and using forests and their resources to benefit people. Siliviculture deals with the methods for establishing and maintaining healthy communities of trees and other vegetation that have value to people." Nyland, Ralph D., Silviculture: Concepts and Applications, 2nd Ed. (2002) Basically silviculture is practiced at the forest stand level and forestry involves a group of forest stands that compose a forest. I am a forester that practices silvics at the stand level that in total is my practice of forestry. I work differently in a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stand than I would in a Jeffrey pine (Pinus Jeffreyi) stand. Both stands can be present in a single forest. The difference is in scale. SierraSkier 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)SierraSkier

[edit] Sustainable

I agree with the explicit implication that silviculture, to be truly effective, should have sustainability as its goal. This is surely however a point of view. Silvicultural methods can be used in a non-sustainable way, it relies on the practicioner or controlling organisation and their management ethos (amoung other things) to determine sustainability. For example, establishing large scale plantations of productive exotic species on land recently cleared of native species will employ a wide range of silvicultural techniques but could be questioned on grounds of sustainability.The Boy that time forgot 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Accountants can also hide millions of dollars in losses through fraud, but by definition that is not the practice of accounting, that is the practice of fraud. Silviculturists that practice unsustainable forestry are by definition practicing something other than silviculture. The biological and ecological sciences are the foundation of silviculture and economics is only a consideration. SierraSkier 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)SierraSkier

If I plant a stand of trees I will use silvicultural techniques, if I manage the stand to produce high quality sawlogs (cleaning, thinning, high pruning, etc) I will use more silvicultural techniques. If my descendants then clearfell the stand and sell the land for development all the sustainability that I had intended vanishes. Perhaps my definition of what is sustainable is too rigorous, or perhaps I'm plain wrong. I accept what you say, however I would argue that silviculture is a toolbox of techniques, the sustainability comes from the ethos of the practicioners.The Boy that time forgot 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you have put the point perfectly. As foresters we can only do what we can do. A couple of years ago I was having lunch with my marking crew and we were talking about what the next generation of forester would think of our work. I am trying to entice businesses to invest in low ground pressure equipment for use in Lake Tahoe, but it is difficult, sustainability is expensive, so is unsustainability. If we regulate landowners in California too much we certainly will be establishing condominiums. It is a balancing act with no correct answers. SierraSkier 03:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)