🚀 go-pugleaf

samuel@cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Samuel) writes:
>
>Second-growth wood from a former clearcut produces much less wood per
>acre than the forest which was originally there. 
>The wood that grows back is also less valuable than old growth wood.
>
Simple questions: is the above true?  If so, why?

Possible explanation: 2nd growth is harvested at a younger age than 1st growth,
so, it's inherently less valuable.  Or: the soil under the trees is incapable
of providing nourishment to a new generation of trees -- it's "shot its wad",
so to speak.  Any better explanations are welcomed!


But, what really is "first growth"?

Is it a tree which was created by God, some 5000+ years ago?
Or, new growth after The Flood (40 days of rain, and 6 months of flooding,
which drowned all animals and vegetation).

Is it a tree which was a seedling during the Jurassic Era,
just a few billion years ago?  (If so, why don't trees have *millions*
of growth-rings?)

Is it a seedling which sprouted some 200 years ago,
after some naturally-triggered forest-fire some 205 years ago?

Or, is "first-growth" just some convenient label for any "nice-looking" tree?