Letters

Mt. St. Helens

Don Brunell’s column of 16 July prompted an online search of “Mt. St. Helens recovery” because of his claim: “Nowhere is the contrast between managed forests and barren forest land clearer than on Mount St. Helens.”

That’s not what I found.

Five years ago Scientific American (May 19, 2010) pointed out how well the unmanaged land has recovered:

“…the devastating losses had made room for remarkable gains – in terms of both ecosystem productivity and scientific progress.

“Plants and animals that never stood a chance under heavy canopies of trees, or in the presence of predominating predators, began to flourish. Some of these species were brand new to the area, such as the western meadowlark. The resulting early-successional ecosystems turned out to be even more productive than those of the pre-eruption old-growth forests.

“As the years went by, several lessons in fields ranging from biology to engineering to atmospheric science piled up. Zoologists studied curious cases of spiders windblown into the blast zone; volcanologists engineered stainless steel “smart spiders” to monitor ongoing volcanic activity; and forest managers took notice that areas left untouched by human hands after the eruption fostered greater biodiversity than places where people attempted to speed recovery by salvaging dead trees and planting new ones.”

The natural laboratory produced by the Mt. St. Helens eruption demonstrates the power of nature. Modern timber management creates forests that, despite being monocultures, still produce limited biodiversity. The process of natural succession, as demonstrated by the Mt. St. Helens hands-off recovery, tends to produce healthier forests because of increased biodiversity as well as many other factors.

Pete Haug,

Colfax