The ecologist and the forester debating the finer points of how much silviculture to apply. We have a split on the degree of silviculture that ought to be applied to the ImLal site – high or minimal intervention.
High intervention leads to ease of access, less perceived fire risk, reduction in tree density and the “pleasing prospects” approved of by explorers and pioneers in the days of Aboriginal land management.
Low intervention is closest to unmanaged natural forest and so-called “wilderness", as well as providing dense habitat for protection from feral predators like cats and foxes.
How do these two differing approaches affect biodiverse abundance (a primary goal of a biorich plantation). Seasonal bird surveys have tracked growing use of the site both in the number of species and size of flocks. To what extent will this be compromised by high or low silvicultural intervention?
We have agreed to divide ImLal South in half to demonstrate the use of both approaches.
High intervention leads to ease of access, less perceived fire risk, reduction in tree density and the “pleasing prospects” approved of by explorers and pioneers in the days of Aboriginal land management.
Low intervention is closest to unmanaged natural forest and so-called “wilderness", as well as providing dense habitat for protection from feral predators like cats and foxes.
How do these two differing approaches affect biodiverse abundance (a primary goal of a biorich plantation). Seasonal bird surveys have tracked growing use of the site both in the number of species and size of flocks. To what extent will this be compromised by high or low silvicultural intervention?
We have agreed to divide ImLal South in half to demonstrate the use of both approaches.
