Introduction Page 14A |
| |||
Cone Pond Scientists also conduct similar types of research at nearby Cone Pond. Studies at Cone Pond Watershed (CPW), located 8 km east of the HBEF, were initiated in 1980. The CPW is about 53 hectares, while the HBEF is over 3100. The CPW is dominated by a conifer forest (mostly balsam fir, red spruce, and eastern hemlock), as are many sections of the HBEF. While the CPW is similar to the HBEF in this and other aspects, it has some unique differences that make it an interesting comparison research site. For example, the CPW does not have a history of human habitation or forest harvest, while the area around Mirror Lake and the HBEF was heavily logged. Furthermore, Cone Pond is one of the most acidic bodies of water in the state, with an average pH of 4.6. By comparison, Mirror Lake's pH is 6.3 - 6.8. This means that Cone Pond is about 100 times more acidic than Mirror Lake. Because the CPW and HBEF are similar in many respects, scientists can examine the differences to better understand how the two ecosystems function. Ongoing studies seek to describe how these and other differences (such as geology) could affect nutrient cycling, base cations, water chemistry, and acidification.
The Bowl Research Natural Area The Bowl is an old growth forest located about 26 km from the HBEF, and covers about 206 hectares. It is comprised of low elevation northern hardwoods and higher elevation spruce-fir. In many attributes The Bowl resembles the HBEF (for example, soil and forest types). However, in one attribute it is very different: The Bowl apparently has never been logged. In this respect The Bowl is quite unique because nearly all the forests in the region, including the HBEF, were cut down in the 19th and 20th centuries. Hence, The Bowl is a valuable old-growth reference area to compare with more common second-growth forests. You may be surprised to learn that despite this difference in logging history, the composition of the forest and sizes of the trees are very similar in the two sites. Apparently the types of logging that were carried out in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not have long-lasting effects on these characteristics of the forest. Do you think the same would be true of modern logging practices like the whole-tree harvest on Watershed 5? |
|