>>2439749>>2439153You both seem to be missing a pretty critical piece of information. Almost every nutrient that a tree uses for growth and maintenance is contained in the crown and the roots. Neither of these are typically taken in a logging operation because those parts are not marketable or easy to process.
The trunk or “log” that typically gets taken off site is almost entirely composed of cellulose and on larger trees the center portion wont even contain any living tissue. Cellulose is the main ingredient in basically every natural paper product and the main component in any processed board. This cellulose is largely made up of oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. All three of these elements are necessary for plant life. Trees obtain these three elements almost exclusively through gas exchange and water.
This doesn’t mean that oxygen, hydrogen and carbon are present in the soil but it does mean that they are exponentially easier to replace than other nutrients like the heavy metals plants require that hang around the roots.
Most pioneer tree species are either adept at gas exchange and nutrient production like locust and red alder or sacrifice stability and main stem density for growth rate like a lot of maples and aspen. Some of these pioneers even alter soil chemistry to make growing condition suit them better which is why some of them occur in giant monoculture stands.
Loggers don’t understand these things and even if logging destroyed the areas it occurred in people would still do it. We still see farmers, ranchers and homesteaders raping land without much consideration so it’s really fortunate that logging doesn’t drain the land as hard hard as those practices.
I think it’s good habit to be resistant to logging especially if your ignorant to what’s actually happening but more wood products=less plastic products so it’s something to think about.
