Talk:Silviculture

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Silviculture article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Forestry#History|origin of forestry]] The anchor (#History) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

{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[reply]

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)[reply]

 Vital article|class=C|level=5|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology|anchor=Trees and Forestry (6 articles)}}

Enrichment planting: Enrichment planting is one of the important technique used in forest rehabilitation. It is defined as 'the introduction of valuable species to degraded forest without elimination of valuable species which already exist at that particular site. It is commonly used for increasing the density of desired species in the secondary forest. The word enrichment plantation means plantation for beauty. The word enrichment also means to fertilise or to make rich. Enrichment planting can be used successfully to increase the value of secondary forests and prevent their conversion to other land uses. Thus reducing deforestation. Enrichment planting could be an important land use strategy in context of the current international attempts to control deforestation in developing countries. Enrichment planting involves planting of indigenous and exotic species in large gaps. The plants can be collected from the seedlings in the forest floor or they can be grown in the nurseries before planting. Selection of species for planting. Ideally, priority must be given to planting of high quality species that are indigenous to the areas to be enriched. In introducing the species that are exotic to the site , every effort must be given towards matching the introduced species to the local site conditions. This avoids the waste of money, efforts as well as the disappointment from failure resulting from the introduction of the wrong species. Select the species for enrichment planting on the basis the following silvicultural features. 1. Frequent flowering. 2. Easy nursery handling. 3. High germination rate. 4. Fast height growth in early stages. 5. Tolerant to drought and site competition. 6. High survival rate. 7. Naturally self pruning. 8. Normally free from all types of insect and diseases. 9. Rapid growth in girth. 10. Producer of timber of high quality.

Inappropriate advertising

This sounds like an inappropriate advertisement for someone's research paper and probably ought to be removed: "Suggestions for how best to go about the job, presented by Jeglum et al. (2003),[4] though aimed primarily at the boreal forest in Ontario, merit wider consideration. The 110-page publication describes Best Management Practices, first by general principles, then by sensitive sites. Illustrations are plentiful and are well chosen to complement this excellent text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.148.76 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

To chime-in, I think that Silviculture is more limited than forestry. My brief personal notes on the topic are at Forests are not a renewable resource. In that page, I touch-upon that "forests" are not really trees. Trees are just one aspect of forests. Silvicuture would probably be less developed from the angle of recreation, camping, etc.. From my reading, I don't find Silviculture and Forestry to be equal or identical. Very similar, but not equivalent.Mdvaden 06:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add my little bit, and echo some of the points made,

Forestry "The profession embracing the science, art, and practice of creating, managing, using, and conserving forests and associated resources for human benefit and in a sustainable manner to meet desired goals, needs and values. The broad field of forestry consists of those biological, quantitiatve, managerial, and social sciences that are applied to forest management and conservation; it includes specialized fields such as agro-forestry, urban forestry, industrial forestry, nonindustrial forestry, and wilderness and recreation forestry." Dictionnaire de la foresterie, Cote, Marc 2000.

Silviculture "The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, compostion, health, and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis." Dictionnaire de la foresterie, Cote, Marc 2000.

Comparing these definitions, silivculture is a tool used by and seperate from forestry. I say this because forestry is not limited to silviculture. Forestry is a profession which encompasses more than just cutting and growing trees. It has to do this ethically and legally. Forestry also(at least in Ontario) requires; continuous learning, public consultation, legal obligations, social initiative (i.e. jobs) in all facets that Forestry is made up of. In short, Forestry is a social, science and economic profession, silviculutre is one of the tools used by a Forester. 14:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Grebber

______

I am not an expert on this subject but have worked as a tree planter and it seems to me that the aspect of actively planting trees to replace cut timber is missing from this page. In Canada it plays a huge role as both clearcuts (both new and historical) as well as unsightly burns in highly visible areas are planted. This planting usually aims to replace the original species with seeds collected from the cut trees or nearby stands. Could someone with more expertise address this in the article? Neiler 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a forester, in Catalonia (Spain). In Catalan we have only a term: "silvicultura", as it is the case also in French: "sylviculture". I think that the equivalent English term is "forestry", and consider that this "silviculture" article should be merged with the one on "forestry".Auró (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further. It may be that the existence of two different terms to name very similar or identical things, in the case of forestry-silviculture comes from the American history of forest practice. In the times of colonization forestry consisted solely in harvesting, so when some pioneers imported forest cultural techniques from Europe, they introduced the European term silviculture. I think that today there is no longer any sense to maintain both terms, and forestry is the more universally used.Auró (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

I would add that silviculture requires active management. You can practice forestry by doing nothing, by allowing natural processes to take place, but I do not think this would be classified as silviculture.Joe Greentrees (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_____

Forestry and silviculture are inter-related but not the same. Silviculture is to forestry as agriculture is to farming; a methodological approach to managing an ecosystem to provide a renewable source of biological product. Just as one may gather food without using agricultural methods, one may harvest wood from forests without employing silviculture. It is key that this article makes and distinguishes these points. Halogenated (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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) ashley and deven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.111.130 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common Regeneration Methods

I know that the Nyland text is widely respected in the United States, but I have to disagree with its statement that there are only five common regeneration methods. The article currently ignores coppicing, a distinct category of regeneration. Additionally, although many forestry textbooks leave it out, prescribed fire is a regeneration method (although some might put it in another category)

The reason why I'm bringing this up in the talk page (and not simply making the change) is that I don't doubt that some foresters think that there are only five methods for regeneration. I don't want to rewrite the entire section on regeneration but I don't want to add more regeneration methods when the article already says there are five.

I'm a new contributor so I'd appreciate some suggestions.Joe Greentrees (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Variable retention

Thank you for the contribution. I assume that the method consists basically in leaving some felled logs (variable) on the stand. If it is so, may be the explanation could be improved. A reference would help a lot. If 96 50 59 241 is not yet used to introduce references, this may be a good opportunity to start it. If there is some difficulty, a more experienced editor will come to help. --Auró (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found and added a reference.--Auró (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Silvology

Not a clear need for a separate stand-alone article. One book, by one author. Intersects with both silviculture and forest ecology. Best as a section within silviculture? DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar produces 133.000 citations for "silviculture" and only 279 for "silvology". It seems a quite marginal term. From the reading of silvology page I do not get a clear idea of what is it about. I think that more clarification is needed prior to introduce the material into this article, and particularly to see if there is any difference between the meaning of both terms.--Auró (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

133 citations for "silviculture" is not very many. But I count more than 900 times that! My vote is to merge. Bwrs (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(This may be an intercultural numeric writing convention issue: for North Americans, the above note should probably be read as '133,000 citations'... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Of course it is hundred and thirty three thousand. --Auró (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to not include silvology with silviculture. The forest products industry in the Pacific Northwest seldom uses the term silvology. Silviculture is the commonly used term and should not be confused with silvology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.239.88.243 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is against merging: silvology is a scientific pursuit of understanding, while silviculture is an applied activity to bring about particular ends. There is certainly overlap, but no more overlap than between biology and agriculture.--Wcoole (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Does not appear to be support for this suggestion. Merger request withdrawn. Thanks for your input. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brushing

Should this be addded somewhere in the article? http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Lmr/Lmr077.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.38.108 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Scope

A fascinating read with a lot of information on Spruce Silviculture in Canada. Information on any other topics (hardwoods, temperate forests, etc.) is definitely lacking. Furthermore, some general statements are false when appied to other areas (e.g., mechanical pre-commercial thinning is economic in (at least some) loblolly pine plantations in the southeastern US).

I wish I could add to the article; unfortunately, my knowledge is far too limited. I do hope to encourge more information to be added to the excellent data already here to make this a more well-rounded article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.0.196 (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

An IP proposed a split of this article into five: Silviculture, Regeneration (silviculture), Tending, Harvesting systems, Growth and yield. At 134,308 bytes, the current article is certainly long enough to WP:SIZESPLIT, but I'm not sure if the proposed new pages would indeed be the best way to partition all of the information, or if it's entirely necessary to be split 5 ways into 4 new articles. It seems that some of this stuff might be moved to existing related articles like Forest ecology and Silvology, discussed in the proposed merge above. Anyone have any input on how this might best be divvied up? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silviculture

Diploma in forestry 2405:ACC0:1207:4D0:D48D:75EA:F2F3:F681 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]