Virgin forest. Why is there no such thing in our vastness. Why are all trees young in Russia, while trees in America are long-lived? But in Russia there is a lot of coal Why there are no trees older than 200 years

It was precisely the wary attitude towards the statements of Alexei Kungurov about the Perm forests and clearings, at one of his conferences, that prompted me to conduct this study. Well, how! There was a mysterious hint of hundreds of kilometers of clearings in the forests and their age. I was personally hooked by the fact that I walk through the forest quite often and far enough, but I did not notice anything unusual.
And this time an amazing feeling was repeated - the more you understand, the more new questions appear. I had to re-read a lot of sources, from materials on forestry of the 19th century, to the modern "Instructions for conducting forest management in the forest fund of Russia." This did not add clarity, rather the opposite. However, there was confidence that it's dirty here.
First amazing fact , which was confirmed - dimension of the quarter network. The quarterly network, by definition, is "The system of forest quarters created on the lands of the forest fund for the purpose of inventorying the forest fund, organizing and maintaining forestry and forest management." The quarterly network consists of quarterly glades. This is a straight strip freed from trees and shrubs (usually up to 4 m wide), laid in the forest in order to mark the boundaries of forest quarters. During forest inventory, cutting and clearing of a quarter clearing to a width of 0.5 m is carried out, and their expansion to 4 m is carried out in subsequent years by forestry workers.
In the picture you can see how these clearings look in Udmurtia. The picture was taken from the program « Google Earth» (see Fig.2). The quarters are rectangular. For measurement accuracy, a segment of 5 blocks wide is marked. She made 5340 m, which means that the width of 1 quarter is 1067 meters, or exactly 1 track verst. The quality of the picture leaves much to be desired, but I myself constantly walk along these clearings, and I know well what you see from above from the ground. Until that moment, I was firmly convinced that all these forest roads the work of Soviet foresters. But what the hell did they need mark the quarterly network in versts?
Checked. In the instructions, quarters are supposed to be marked with a size of 1 by 2 km. The error at this distance is allowed no more than 20 meters. But 20 is not 340. However, in all forest management documents it is stipulated that if block network projects already exist, then you should simply link to them. It is understandable, the work on laying the glades is a lot of work to redo.
Today, there are already machines for clearing clearings (see Fig. 3), but they should be forgotten, since almost the entire forest fund of the European part of Russia, plus part of the forest beyond the Urals, approximately to Tyumen, is divided into a verst block network. Of course, there is also a kilometer, because in the last century the foresters also did something, but mostly it was a verst. In particular, there are no kilometer clearings in Udmurtia. And this means that the project and practical laying of the quarterly network in most of the forest areas of the European part of Russia were made no later than 1918. It was at this time that the metric system of measures was adopted for mandatory use in Russia, and the verst gave way to the kilometer.
It turns out made with axes and jigsaws if, of course, we understand historical reality correctly. Considering that the forest area of ​​the European part of Russia is about 200 million hectares, this is a titanic work. The calculation shows that the total length of the glades is about 3 million km. For clarity, imagine the 1st lumberjack armed with a saw or an ax. During the day, he will be able to clear an average of no more than 10 meters of clearing. But we must not forget that these works can be carried out mainly in winter time. This means that even 20,000 lumberjacks, working annually, would create our excellent verst block network for at least 80 years.
But there has never been such a number of workers involved in forest management. According to the articles of the 19th century, it is clear that there were always very few forestry specialists, and the funds allocated for these purposes could not cover such expenses. Even if we imagine that for this they drove peasants from the surrounding villages to do free work, it is still not clear who did this in the sparsely populated areas of the Perm, Kirov, and Vologda regions.
After this fact, it is no longer so surprising that the entire block network is tilted by about 10 degrees and is not directed to the geographic North Pole, and, apparently, magnetic(marking was carried out by compass, and not by GPS navigator), which was supposed to be at that time located about 1000 kilometers towards Kamchatka. And not so embarrassing that magnetic pole, according to official data of scientists, has never been there from the 17th century to the present day. It’s not even frightening that even today the compass needle points in approximately the same direction in which the quarterly network was made before 1918. It still can't be! All logic falls apart.
But it is. And in order to finish off the consciousness clinging to reality, I inform you that all this economy must also be serviced. According to the norms, a complete audit takes place every 20 years. If it passes at all. And during this period of time, the “forest user” should monitor the clearings. Well, if in Soviet time someone followed, then over the past 20 years is unlikely. But clearings are not overgrown. There is a windbreak, but there are no trees in the middle of the road. But in 20 years, a pine seed that accidentally fell to the ground, of which billions are sown annually, grows up to 8 meters in height. Not only are the clearings not overgrown, you will not even see stumps from periodic clearings. This is all the more striking in comparison with power lines, which special brigades cleared of grown shrubs and trees regularly.
This is what typical clearings in our forests look like. Grass, sometimes bushes, but no trees. There are no signs of regular maintenance (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
The second big mystery is the age of our forest, or trees in this forest. In general, let's go in order. First, let's figure out how long a tree lives. Here is the relevant table.

AT different sources The numbers are slightly different, but not significantly. Pine and spruce should normal conditions survive up to 300…400 years. You begin to understand how ridiculous everything is only when you compare the diameter of such a tree with what we see in our forests. Spruce 300 years old should have a trunk with a diameter of about 2 meters. Well, like in a fairy tale. The question arises: Where are all these giants? No matter how much I walk through the forest, I have not seen thicker than 80 cm. They are not in the mass. There are piece copies ( in Udmurtia - 2 pines) that reach 1.2 m, but their age is also no more than 200 years. In general, how does the forest live? Why do trees grow or die in it?
It turns out that there is a concept "natural forest". This is a forest that lives its own life - it has not been cut down. He has distinguishing feature- low crown density from 10 to 40%. That is, some trees were already old and tall, but some of them fell affected by a fungus or died, losing competition with their neighbors for water, soil and light. Large gaps form in the forest canopy. A lot of light begins to get there, which is very important in the forest struggle for existence, and young growth actively begins to grow up. Therefore, the natural forest consists of different generations, and crown density is the main indicator of this.
But if the forest was subjected to clear cutting, then new trees long time grow at the same time, crown density is high, over 40%. Several centuries will pass, and if the forest is not touched, then the struggle for a place under the sun will do its job. It will become natural again. Do you want to know how much natural forest in our country that is not affected by anything? Please, a map of Russian forests (see Fig.6).
The bright colors indicate forests with high canopy density, i.e. they are not “natural forests”. And most of them are. All European part denoted by saturated blue color. This is as stated in the table: “Small-leaved and mixed forests. Forests with a predominance of birch, aspen, gray alder, often with an admixture of coniferous trees or with separate areas of coniferous forests. Almost all of them are derived forests that have formed on the site of primary forests as a result of logging, clearing, forest fires ... "
On the mountains and the tundra zone, you can not stop, there the rarity of the crowns may be due to other reasons. But the plains and middle lane covers clearly a young forest. How young? Come down and check. It is unlikely that you will find a tree older than 150 years in the forest. Even the standard drill for determining the age of a tree is 36 cm long and is designed for a tree 130 years old. How does this explain forest science? Here's what they came up with:
“Forest fires are a fairly common phenomenon for most of the taiga zone. European Russia. Furthermore: Forest fires in the taiga are so common that some researchers consider the taiga as a lot of fires different ages- more precisely, a lot of forests that have formed on these burned areas. Many researchers believe that forest fires are, if not the only, then at least the main natural mechanism for forest renewal, the replacement of old generations of trees with young ones ... "
All this is called. That's where the dog is buried. The forest was on fire, and burned almost everywhere. And this, according to experts, main reason small age of our forests. Not fungus, not bugs, not hurricanes. Our entire taiga stands on fire, and after a fire, the same thing remains as after clear-cutting. From here high crown density almost throughout the entire forest zone. Of course, there are exceptions - really untouched forests in the Angara region, on Valaam and, probably, somewhere else in the expanses of our vast Motherland. It's really fabulous big trees in its mass. And although these are small islands in the boundless sea of ​​the taiga, they prove that forest can be.
What is so common in forest fires that over the past 150 ... 200 years they have burned the entire forest area of ​​​​700 million hectares? Moreover, according to scientists, in some checkerboard pattern respecting the sequence, and certainly at different times?
First you need to understand the scale of these events in space and time. The fact that the main age of old trees in the bulk of forests is at least 100 years old, suggests that large-scale fires, which so rejuvenated our forests, occurred over a period of no more than 100 years. Translating to dates, for one only 19th century. For this it was necessary burn 7 million hectares of forest annually.
Even as a result of large-scale forest fires in the summer of 2010, which all experts called catastrophic in terms of volume, only 2 million hectares. It turns out that there is nothing "so ordinary" in this. The last justification for such a burned past of our forests could be the tradition of slash-and-burn agriculture. But how, in this case, to explain the state of the forest in places where traditionally agriculture was not developed? In particular, in Perm region? Moreover, this method of farming involves the labor-intensive cultural use of limited areas of the forest, and not at all unrestrained arson of large areas in the hot summer season, but with a breeze.
Going through everything possible options, it can be said with certainty that scientific concept "dynamics of random disturbances" nothing in real life not justified, and is myth, designed to mask the inadequate state of the current forests of Russia, and hence events leading to this.
We will have to admit that our forests either burned heavily (beyond the norm) and constantly burned throughout the 19th century (which in itself is inexplicable and is not recorded anywhere), or burned down at the same time as a result some incident, why furiously denies scientific world, having no arguments other than that in official history nothing of the kind is recorded.
To all this, one can add that there were clearly fabulously large trees in the old natural forests. It has already been said about the reserved surviving areas of the taiga. It is worth giving an example in part deciduous forests. AT Nizhny Novgorod region and in Chuvashia very favorable climate for deciduous trees. There are a lot of oak trees growing there. But you, again, will not find old copies. The same 150 years old, no older. Older single copies are all over the place. There is a photo at the beginning of the article the largest oak tree in Belarus. It grows in Belovezhskaya Pushcha (see Fig. 1). Its diameter is about 2 meters, and its age is estimated at 800 years which, of course, is highly arbitrary. Who knows, maybe he somehow survived the fires, it happens. The largest oak in Russia is considered to be a specimen growing in the Lipetsk region. According to conditional estimates, he 430 years(see Fig.7).
A special theme is bog oak. This is the one that is extracted mainly from the bottom of the rivers. My relatives from Chuvashia told me that they pulled huge specimens up to 1.5 m in diameter from the bottom. And there were many(see Fig.8). This indicates the composition of the former oak forest, the remains of which lie at the bottom. This means that nothing prevents the current oaks from growing to such sizes. What, before "dynamics of random disturbances" in the form of thunderstorms and lightning worked somehow in a special way? No, everything was the same. And so it turns out that the current forest has not yet reached maturity.
Let's summarize what we got as a result of this research. There are a lot of contradictions between the reality that we observe with our own eyes and the official interpretation of the relatively recent past:
- There is a developed quarterly network on a huge space, which was designed in versts and was laid no later than 1918. The length of the glades is such that 20,000 lumberjacks, subject to manual labor, would create it for 80 years. Clearings are serviced very irregularly, if at all, but they do not overgrow.
- On the other side, according to historians and surviving articles on forestry, there was no funding of a commensurate scale and the required number of forestry specialists at that time. There was no way to recruit such an amount of free work force. There was no mechanization capable of facilitating these works. It is required to choose: either our eyes deceive us, or The 19th century was not like that at all as historians tell us. In particular, there could be mechanization, commensurate with the described tasks (What could this steam engine from the film “The Barber of Siberia” be intended for (see Fig. 9). Or is Mikhalkov a completely unthinkable dreamer?).
There could also be less labor-intensive, efficient technologies for laying and maintaining clearings that have been lost today (some distant analogue of herbicides). It is probably foolish to say that Russia has not lost anything after 1917. Finally, perhaps, they did not cut through the clearings, but in the spaces destroyed by the fire, trees were planted in quarters. This is not such nonsense, compared to what science draws us. Though doubtful, it at least explains a lot.
- Our forests are much younger the natural lifespan of the trees themselves. This is evidenced by the official map of the forests of Russia and our eyes. The age of the forest is about 150 years, although pine and spruce under normal conditions grow up to 400 years, and reach 2 meters in thickness. There are also separate sections of the forest from trees of similar age.
According to experts, all our forests are burned out. It is the fires in their opinion, do not give the trees a chance to live to their natural age. Experts do not even allow the thought of the simultaneous destruction of vast expanses of forest, believing that such an event could not go unnoticed. In order to justify this ashes, official science has adopted the theory of "the dynamics of random disturbances." This theory proposes that forest fires are considered commonplace, destroying (according to some incomprehensible schedule) up to 7 million hectares of forest per year, although in 2010 even 2 million hectares destroyed as a result of deliberate forest fires were named catastrophe.
You need to choose: or our eyes deceive us again, or some great events of the 19th century with particular impudence did not find their reflection in the official version of our past, no matter how

Another notch to remember. Is everything honestly and objectively stated in the official history?

Most of our forests are young. Their age is from a quarter to a third of life. Apparently, in the 19th century, some events took place that led to the almost total destruction of our forests. Our forests hold great secrets...

It was precisely the wary attitude towards the statements of Alexei Kungurov about the Perm forests and clearings, at one of his conferences, that prompted me to conduct this study. Well, how! There was a mysterious hint of hundreds of kilometers of clearings in the forests and their age. I was personally hooked by the fact that I walk through the forest quite often and far enough, but I did not notice anything unusual.

And this time an amazing feeling was repeated - the more you understand, the more new questions appear. I had to re-read a lot of sources, from materials on forestry of the 19th century, to modern " Instructions for conducting forest management in the forest fund of Russia". This did not add clarity, rather the opposite. But there was confidence that things are not clean here.

The first amazing fact that was confirmed is the dimension quarter network. The quarterly network, by definition, is " The system of forest quarters, created on the lands of the forest fund for the purpose of inventorying the forest fund, organizing and maintaining forestry and forest management».

The quarterly network consists of quarterly glades. This is a straight strip freed from trees and shrubs (usually up to 4 m wide), laid in the forest in order to mark the boundaries of forest quarters. During forest inventory, cutting and clearing of a quarter clearing to a width of 0.5 m is carried out, and their expansion to 4 m is carried out in subsequent years by forestry workers.

Fig.2

In the picture you can see how these clearings look in Udmurtia. The picture was taken from the program "Google Earth" ( see Fig.2). The quarters are rectangular. For measurement accuracy, a segment of 5 blocks wide is marked. It amounted to 5340 m, which means that the width of 1 quarter is 1067 meters, or exactly 1 track verst. The quality of the picture leaves much to be desired, but I myself constantly walk along these clearings, and I know well what you see from above from the ground. Until that moment, I was firmly convinced that all these forest roads were the work of Soviet foresters. But why the hell did they need to mark the quarterly network in versts?

Checked. In the instructions, quarters are supposed to be marked with a size of 1 by 2 km. The error at this distance is allowed no more than 20 meters. But 20 is not 340. However, in all forest management documents it is stipulated that if block network projects already exist, then you should simply link to them. It is understandable, the work on laying the glades is a lot of work to redo.

Fig.3

Today, clearing machines already exist (see Fig. Fig.3), but they should be forgotten, since almost the entire forest fund of the European part of Russia, plus part of the forest beyond the Urals, approximately to Tyumen, is divided into a verst block network. Of course, there is also a kilometer, because in the last century the foresters also did something, but mostly it was a verst. In particular, there are no kilometer clearings in Udmurtia. And this means that the project and practical laying of the quarterly network in most of the forest areas of the European part of Russia were made no later than 1918. It was at this time that the metric system of measures was adopted for mandatory use in Russia, and the verst gave way to the kilometer.

It turns out made with axes and jigsaws, if, of course, we correctly understand historical reality. Considering that the forest area of ​​the European part of Russia is about 200 million hectares, this is a titanic work. The calculation shows that the total length of the glades is about 3 million km. For clarity, imagine the 1st lumberjack armed with a saw or an ax. During the day, he will be able to clear an average of no more than 10 meters of clearing. But we must not forget that these works can be carried out mainly in the winter. This means that even 20,000 lumberjacks, working annually, would create our excellent verst block network for at least 80 years.

But there has never been such a number of workers involved in forest management. According to the articles of the 19th century, it is clear that there were always very few forestry specialists, and the funds allocated for these purposes could not cover such expenses. Even if we imagine that for this they drove peasants from the surrounding villages to do free work, it is still not clear who did this in the sparsely populated areas of the Perm, Kirov, and Vologda regions.

After this fact, it is no longer so surprising that the entire quarterly network is inclined by about 10 degrees and is directed not to the geographic north pole, but, apparently, to the magnetic one ( markings were made using a compass, not a GPS navigator), which was supposed to be at that time located about 1000 kilometers towards Kamchatka. And it is not so embarrassing that the magnetic pole, according to the official data of scientists, has never been there from the 17th century to the present day. It’s not even frightening that even today the compass needle points in approximately the same direction in which the quarterly network was made before 1918. It still can't be! All logic falls apart.

But it is. And in order to finish off the consciousness clinging to reality, I inform you that all this economy must also be serviced. According to the norms, a complete audit takes place every 20 years. If it passes at all. And during this period of time, the “forest user” should monitor the clearings. Well, if in Soviet times someone followed, then over the past 20 years it is unlikely. But the clearings were not overgrown. There is a windbreak, but there are no trees in the middle of the road.

But in 20 years, a pine seed that accidentally fell to the ground, of which billions are sown annually, grows up to 8 meters in height. Not only are the clearings not overgrown, you will not even see stumps from periodic clearings. This is all the more striking in comparison with power lines, which are regularly cleared by special teams from overgrown shrubs and trees.

Fig.4

This is what typical clearings in our forests look like. Grass, sometimes bushes, but no trees. There are no signs of regular care (see photo). Fig.4 and Fig.5).

Fig.5

The second big mystery is the age of our forest, or the trees in that forest. In general, let's go in order. First, let's figure out how long a tree lives. Here is the relevant table.

* In brackets - height and life expectancy in especially favorable conditions.

In different sources, the numbers differ slightly, but not significantly. Pine and spruce should live up to 300-400 years under normal conditions. You begin to understand how ridiculous everything is only when you compare the diameter of such a tree with what we see in our forests. Spruce 300 years old should have a trunk with a diameter of about 2 meters. Well, like in a fairy tale. The question arises: Where are all these giants? No matter how much I walk through the forest, I have not seen thicker than 80 cm. They are not in the mass. There are piece copies (in Udmurtia - 2 pines) that reach 1.2 m, but their age is also no more than 200 years.

In general, how does the forest live? Why do trees grow or die in it?

It turns out that there is a concept of "natural forest". This is a forest that lives its own life - it has not been cut down. It has a distinctive feature - low crown density from 10 to 40%. That is, some trees were already old and tall, but some of them fell affected by a fungus or died, losing competition with their neighbors for water, soil and light. Large gaps form in the forest canopy. A lot of light begins to get there, which is very important in the forest struggle for existence, and young growth actively begins to grow up. Therefore, the natural forest consists of different generations, and crown density is the main indicator of this.

But, if the forest was subjected to clear-cutting, then new trees grow simultaneously for a long time, crown density is high, more than 40%. Several centuries will pass, and if the forest is not touched, then the struggle for a place under the sun will do its job. It will become natural again. Do you want to know how much natural forest in our country that is not affected by anything? Please, a map of the forests of Russia (see. Fig.6).

Fig.6

The bright colors indicate forests with high canopy density, i.e. they are not “natural forests”. And most of them are. The entire European part is marked in deep blue. This is as indicated in the table: Small-leaved and mixed forests. Forests with a predominance of birch, aspen, gray alder, often with an admixture of coniferous trees or with separate areas of coniferous forests. Almost all are derivative forests formed on the site of primary forests as a result of logging, clearing, forest fires.».

On the mountains and the tundra zone, you can not stop, there the rarity of the crowns may be due to other reasons. But it covers the plains and the middle lane clearly a young forest. How young? Come down and check. It is unlikely that you will find a tree older than 150 years in the forest. Even a standard drill for determining the age of a tree has a length of 36 cm and is designed for a tree age of 130 years. How does forest science explain this? Here's what they came up with:

« Forest fires are a fairly common phenomenon for most of the taiga zone of European Russia. Moreover, forest fires in the taiga are so common that some researchers consider the taiga as a multitude of burnt areas of different ages - more precisely, a multitude of forests formed on these burnt areas. Many researchers believe that forest fires are, if not the only, then at least the main natural mechanism for forest renewal, the replacement of old generations of trees by young ones.…»

All this is called dynamics of random disturbances". That's where the dog is buried. The forest burned, and burned almost everywhere. And this, according to experts, is the main reason for the small age of our forests. Not fungus, not bugs, not hurricanes. Our entire taiga stands on fire, and after a fire, the same thing remains as after clear-cutting. Hence the high density of crowns in almost the entire forest zone. Of course, there are exceptions - really untouched forests in the Angara region, on Valaam and, probably, somewhere else in the expanses of our vast Motherland. There are really fabulously large trees in their mass. And although these are small islands in the boundless sea of ​​the taiga, they prove that the forest can be like that.

What is so common in forest fires that over the past 150 ... 200 years they have burned the entire forest area of ​​​​700 million hectares? Moreover, according to scientists, in a certain checkerboard pattern, observing the order, and certainly at different times?

First you need to understand the scale of these events in space and time. The fact that the main age of old trees in the bulk of the forests is at least 100 years suggests that large-scale fires, which have so rejuvenated our forests, occurred over a period of no more than 100 years. Translating into dates, for the 19th century alone. For this it was necessary to burn annually 7 million hectares of forest.

Even as a result of large-scale forest fires in the summer of 2010, which all experts called catastrophic in size, burned down only 2 million hectares. Turns out nothing so ordinary' is not in this. The last justification for such a burned past of our forests could be the tradition of slash-and-burn agriculture. But how, in this case, to explain the state of the forest in places where traditionally agriculture was not developed? In particular, in the Perm region? Moreover, this method of farming involves the labor-intensive cultural use of limited areas of the forest, and not at all unrestrained arson of large areas in the hot summer season, but with a breeze.

Having gone through all the possible options, we can say with confidence that the scientific concept of " dynamics of random disturbances”is not substantiated by anything in real life, and is a myth intended to mask the inadequate state of the current forests of Russia, and hence the events that led to this.

We will have to admit that our forests are either heavily ( beyond the norm) and constantly burned throughout the 19th century ( which in itself is inexplicable and nowhere recorded), or burned out at the same time as a result of some incident, from which the scientific world furiously denies, having no arguments, except that in official no such thing is recorded in history.

To all this, one can add that there were clearly fabulously large trees in the old natural forests. It has already been said about the reserved surviving areas of the taiga. It is worth giving an example in terms of deciduous forests. The Nizhny Novgorod region and Chuvashia have a very favorable climate for deciduous trees. There are a lot of oak trees growing there. But you, again, will not find old copies. The same 150 years old, no older.

Older single copies are all over the place. At the beginning of the article there is a photograph of the largest oak tree in Belarus. It grows in Belovezhskaya Pushcha (see. Fig.1). Its diameter is about 2 meters, and its age is estimated at 800 years, which, of course, is very conditional. Who knows, maybe he somehow survived the fires, it happens. The largest oak in Russia is considered to be a specimen growing in the Lipetsk region. According to conditional estimates, he is 430 years old (see. Fig.7).

Fig.7

A special theme is bog oak. This is the one that is extracted mainly from the bottom of the rivers. My relatives from Chuvashia told me that they pulled huge specimens up to 1.5 m in diameter from the bottom. And there were many (cf. Fig.8). This indicates the composition of the former oak forest, the remains of which lie at the bottom. This means that nothing prevents the current oaks from growing to such sizes. Did the “dynamics of random disturbances” in the form of thunderstorms and lightning work in a special way before? No, everything was the same. So it turns out that the current forest has simply not yet reached maturity.

Fig.8

Let's summarize what we got as a result of this research. There are a lot of contradictions between the reality that we observe with our own eyes and the official interpretation of the relatively recent past:

There is a developed quarterly network over a vast area, which was designed in versts and was laid no later than 1918. The length of the glades is such that 20,000 lumberjacks, subject to manual labor, would create it for 80 years. Clearings are serviced very irregularly, if at all, but they do not overgrow.

On the other hand, according to historians and surviving articles on forestry, there was no funding of a commensurate scale and the required number of forestry specialists at that time. There was no way to recruit a similar amount of free labor. There was no mechanization capable of facilitating these works.

It is required to choose: either our eyes are deceiving us, or the 19th century was not at all what historians tell us. In particular, there could be mechanization commensurate with the tasks described. For what interesting could this steam engine from the movie " Siberian barber" (cm. Fig.9). Or is Mikhalkov a completely unthinkable dreamer?

Fig.9

There could also be less labor-intensive, efficient technologies for laying and maintaining glades that have been lost today ( some distant analogue of herbicides). It is probably foolish to say that Russia has not lost anything after 1917. Finally, perhaps, they did not cut through the clearings, but in the spaces destroyed by the fire, trees were planted in quarters. This is not such nonsense, compared to what science draws us. Though doubtful, it at least explains a lot.

Our forests are much younger than the natural lifespan of the trees themselves. This is evidenced by the official map of the forests of Russia and our eyes. The age of the forest is about 150 years, although pine and spruce under normal conditions grow up to 400 years, and reach 2 meters in thickness. There are also separate sections of the forest from trees of similar age.

According to experts, all our forests are burned out. It is the fires, in their opinion, that do not give the trees a chance to live to their natural age. Experts do not even allow the thought of the simultaneous destruction of vast expanses of forest, believing that such an event could not go unnoticed. In order to justify this ashes, official science has adopted the theory of " dynamics of random disturbances". This theory suggests that forest fires that destroy ( according to some strange schedule) up to 7 million hectares of forest per year, although in 2010 even 2 million hectares, destroyed as a result of deliberate arson of the forest, were called a disaster.

It is required to choose: either our eyes are deceiving us again, or some grandiose events of the 19th century with particular impudence were not reflected in the official version of our past, as it did not fit there nor Great Tartary, nor Great Northern Way . Atlantis with fallen moon and they didn't fit. One Time Destruction 200…400 million hectares it is even easier to imagine forests, and even to hide them, than the unquenchable, 100-year-old fire proposed for consideration by science.

So what is the age-old sadness of Belovezhskaya Pushcha about? Is it not about those heavy wounds of the earth that the young forest covers? After all, giant conflagrations by themselves don't happen...

One of the arguments against the fact that a large-scale catastrophe could have happened 200 years ago is the myth about "relict" forests that allegedly grow in the Urals and in Western Siberia.
For the first time, I came across the idea that something was wrong with our “relict” forests ten years ago, when I accidentally discovered that in the “relict” urban forest, firstly, old trees older than 150 years are completely absent , and secondly, there is a very thin fertile layer, about 20-30 cm. It was strange, because while reading various articles on ecology and forestry, I repeatedly came across information that a fertile layer of about one meter forms in a forest over a thousand years yes, millimeters per year. A little later it turned out that a similar picture is observed not only in the central city forest, but also in other pine forests located in Chelyabinsk and its environs. There are no old trees, the fertile layer is thin.

When I began to ask local experts about this topic, they began to explain something to me about the fact that before the revolution, forests were cut down and replanted, and the rate of accumulation of the fertile layer in pine forests it must be considered differently that I don’t understand anything about this and it’s better not to go there. At that moment, this explanation, in general, suited me.
In addition, it turned out that one should distinguish between the concept of "relict forest", when it comes to forests that have been growing in a given area for a very long time, and the concept of "relict plants", that is, those that have been preserved only in this place since ancient times. Last term does not mean at all that the plants themselves and the forests in which they grow are old, respectively, the presence a large number relic plants in the forests of the Urals and Siberia does not prove that the forests themselves have been growing in this place invariably for thousands of years.
When I began to deal with the "Tape Forests" and collect information about them, I came across the following message on one of the regional Altai forums:
“One question haunts me... Why is our tape pine forest called relic? What is relic in it? They write, they say, that it owes its origin to the glacier. The glacier came down more than one thousand years ago (according to the tormented ones). Pine lives for 400 years and grows up to 40 meters up. If the glacier went down so long ago, then where was the ribbon forest all this time? Why is there practically no old trees in it? And where are the dead trees? Why is the layer of earth there a few centimeters and immediately sand? Even in three hundred years, the cones/needles should have made a larger layer... In general, it seems that the ribbon forest is a little older than Barnaul (if not younger) and the glacier, thanks to which it arose, did not descend 10,000 years ago, but much closer to we are on time ... Maybe I don’t understand something? ... "
http://forums.drom.ru/altai/t1151485069.html
This message is dated November 15, 2010, that is, at that time there were no videos by Alexei Kungurov, or any other materials on this topic. It turns out that, independently of me, another person had exactly the same questions that I once had.
Upon further study of this topic, it turned out that a similar picture, that is, the absence of old trees and a very thin fertile layer, is observed in almost all forests of the Urals and Siberia. One day I accidentally got into a conversation on this topic with a representative of one of the companies that processed data for our forestry department throughout the country. He began to argue with me and prove that I was wrong, that this could not be, and right there in front of me called the person who was responsible for statistical processing. And the man confirmed this, that the maximum age of the trees that they were registered in this work was 150 years. True, the version they issued said that in the Urals and Siberia coniferous trees basically do not live more than 150 years, so they are not taken into account.
We open the reference book on the age of trees http://www.sci.aha.ru/ALL/e13.htm and see that Scotch pine lives 300-400 years, in especially favorable conditions up to 600 years, Siberian cedar pine 400-500 years, European spruce 300-400 (500) years old, prickly spruce 400-600 years old, and Siberian larch 500 years old normal conditions, and up to 900 years in particularly favorable!
It turns out that everywhere these trees live for at least 300 years, and in Siberia and the Urals no more than 150?
How relic forests should actually look can be seen here: http://www.kulturologia.ru/blogs/191012/17266/ These are photographs from cutting down redwoods in Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the thickness of the trunks of which reaches up to 6 meters, and the age is up to 1500 years. Well, then Canada, but here, they say, sequoias do not grow. Why they don’t grow, if the climate is almost the same, none of the “specialists” could really explain.


Now yes, now they do not grow. But it turns out that similar trees grew with us. Guys from our Chelyabinsk state university who participated in excavations in the area of ​​Arkaim and the "country of cities" in the south Chelyabinsk region, they said that where the steppe is now, in the days of Arkaim there were coniferous forests, and in places they met giant trees, whose trunk diameter was up to 4 - 6 meters! That is, they were commensurate with those that we see in the photo from Canada. The version about where these forests have gone is that the forests were barbarously cut down by the inhabitants of Arkaim and other settlements they created, and it is even suggested that it was the depletion of the forests that caused the migration of the Arkaim people. Like, here the whole forest was cut down, let's go cut down in another place. The fact that forests can be planted and grown anew, as they did everywhere since at least the 18th century, the Arkaim people, apparently, did not yet know. Why for 5500 years (Arkaim is now dated to such an age) the forest in this place did not recover itself, there is no intelligible answer. Didn't grow up, well, didn't grow up. It so happened.

Here is a series of photographs I took at the local history museum in Yaroslavl this summer when I was on vacation with my family.




In the first two photos, he sawed down pine trees at the age of 250 years. The trunk is over a meter in diameter. Directly above it are two pyramids, which are made up of saw cuts of pine trunks at the age of 100 years, the right one grew in freedom, the left one in mixed forest. In the forests, in which I happened to be, there are mostly just similar 100-year-old trees or a little thicker.




These photos show them larger. At the same time, the difference between a pine that grew in freedom and in an ordinary forest is not very significant, and the difference between a pine of 250 years and 100 years is just somewhere around 2.5-3 times. This means that the diameter of a pine trunk at the age of 500 years will be about 3 meters, and at the age of 600 years it will be about 4 meters. That is, the giant stumps found during excavations could have remained even from an ordinary pine tree about 600 years old.


On the last photo saw cuts of pines that grew in the deaf spruce forest and in the swamp. But I was especially struck in this showcase by a cut down of pine trees at the age of 19, which is on the right at the top. Apparently this tree grew in freedom, but still the thickness of the trunk is simply gigantic! Now trees do not grow at such a speed, even in freedom, even with artificial cultivation with care and feeding, which once again indicates that very strange things are happening on our Planet with the climate.

From the above photographs it follows that at least pine trees aged 250 years, and taking into account the manufacture of saw cuts in the 50s of the 20th century, born 300 years from today, in the European part of Russia there are, or at least met there 50 years ago. During my life I have walked through the forests for more than one hundred kilometers, both in the Urals and in Siberia. But I have never seen such large pine trees as in the first picture, with a trunk thickness of more than a meter! Neither in forests, nor in open spaces, nor in inhabited places, nor in hard-to-reach areas. Naturally, my personal observations are not yet an indicator, but this is also confirmed by the observations of many other people. If one of the readers can give examples of long-lived trees in the Urals or Siberia, then you are welcome to submit photographs indicating the place and time when they were taken.

If you look at the available photographs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then in Siberia we will see very young forests. Here are well-known photographs from the site of the fall of the Tunguska meteorite, which have been repeatedly published in various publications and articles on the Internet.










All the photographs clearly show that the forest is quite young, no more than 100 years old. Let me remind you that the Tunguska meteorite fell on June 30, 1908. That is, if the previous large-scale disaster that destroyed the forests in Siberia occurred in 1815, then by 1908 the forest should look exactly like in the photographs. Let me remind skeptics that this territory is still practically uninhabited, and at the beginning of the 20th century there were practically no people there. This means that there was simply no one to cut down the forest for economic or other needs.

Another interesting link to the article http://sibved.livejournal.com/73000.html where the author gives interesting historical photos from the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. On them, we also see only a young forest everywhere. No thick old trees are observed. More big selection old photos from the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway here http://murzind.livejournal.com/900232.html












Thus, there are many facts and observations that indicate that on large area In the Urals and Siberia, there are virtually no forests older than 200 years. At the same time, I want to make a reservation right away that I am not saying that there are no old forests in the Urals and Siberia at all. But precisely in those places where the disaster occurred, they are not.

In Russia, the Council for the Preservation of the Natural Heritage of the Nation in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation launched the program "Trees - Monuments of Wildlife". Enthusiasts all over the country are looking for trees 200 years old and older with fire during the day. Two hundred years old trees are unique! So far, about 200 pieces of all breeds and varieties have been found throughout the country. Moreover, most of the trees found have nothing to do with the forest, like this 360-year-old pine. This is determined not only by its modern proud loneliness, but also by the shape of the crown.

Thanks to this program, we are able to fairly objectively assess the age of our forests.
Here are two examples of applications from the Kurgan region.

This, on this moment, oldest tree in the Kurgan region, whose age is set by experts at 189 years old - a little less than 200 years old. Pine grows in the Ozerninsky forest near the sanatorium "Pine Grove". And the forest itself, of course, is much younger: the patrirah pine grew long years alone, as can be seen from the shape of the crown of the tree.
Another application was received from the Kurgan region, claiming a pine tree older than 200 years:

This tree ended up on the territory of the arboretum - it was preserved along with some others native species growing in this area before the laying of the arboretum. The arboretum was founded during the organization of a forest nursery for the Forest School, established in 1893. The forest school and forest nursery were necessary for the training of forestry specialists who were to carry out work on the allocation and evaluation of forests during the construction of the Kurgan section of the Trans-Siberian railway at the end of the 19th century.
Let's note: the forest school and forest nursery were founded about 120 years ago and their purpose was to evaluate forest lands that already existed by that time.
These two trees grow in the Kurgan region, this is the south of Western Siberia - it borders on the Chelyabinsk, Tyumen, Omsk regions, and in the south - on Kazakhstan.
Let us pay attention: both trees began their lives not in the forest, but in an open field - this is evidenced by the shape of their crown and the presence of branches coming almost from the very base. The pines that grow in the forest are a bare, straight whip, "no hitch without a hitch" with a panicle on top, like this group of pines on the left side of the picture:

Here it is, smooth as a string, without knots, the trunk of a pine tree that has grown next to other pine trees:

Yes, these pines grew in the middle of the forest, which was here until the early 60s of the last century, before a sand pit was organized here, from which sand was washed with a dredger onto the highway under construction, which is now called "Baikal". This place is located one kilometer from the northern outskirts of Kurgan.
And now let's make a sortie into the Kurgan forest and look at the terrain of the "arrangement" of a typical West Siberian forest. Let's move away from the lake for a kilometer into the thick of the "ancient" forest.
In the forest, you constantly come across such trees as this pine in the center:

This is not a dried tree, its crown is full of life:

This is an old tree that began its life in an open field, then other pines began to grow around and the branches began to dry from below, the same tree can be seen in the background on the left in the frame.

The girth of the trunk at the chest level of an adult is 230 centimeters, i.e. the diameter of the trunk is about 75 centimeters. For a pine, this is a solid size, so with a trunk thickness of 92 cm, the age of the tree in the next picture was set by experts at 426 years

But in the Kurgan region, perhaps, more favorable conditions for pines - the pine from the Ozerninsky forest, which was discussed above, has a trunk thickness of 110 centimeters and an age of only 189 years. I also found several freshly cut stumps, also about 70 cm in diameter, and counted 130 annual rings. Those. the pines from which the forest began are about 130-150 years old.
If things continue to be the same as they have been for the last 150 years - the forests will grow and gain strength - then it is not difficult to predict how the children from these photographs will see this forest in 50-60 years, when they bring their grandchildren to these, for example, pine trees (fragment photograph placed above - pines by the lake).

You understand: pine trees at 200 years old will cease to be a rarity, in the Kurgan region alone there will be an unmeasurable number of them, pine trees over 150 years old, grown among pine forests, with a trunk as smooth as a telegraph pole without knots, will grow everywhere, but now there are none at all, that is, no at all.
Of the entire mass of monumental pines, I found only one that grew in the forest, in the Khanty-Mansiysk Okrug:

Given the harsh climate of those places (equated to areas Far North), with a trunk thickness of 66 cm, it is fair to consider this tree much older than 200 years. At the same time, the applicants noted that this pine is a rarity for local forests. And in the local forests, with an area of ​​at least 54 thousand hectares, there is nothing like this! There are forests, but the forest in which this pine was born has disappeared somewhere - after all, it has grown and stretched among the pines that were even older. But they are not.
And this is what will prevent those pines that grow, at least in the Kurgan forests, from continuing their lives - pines live and for 400 years, as we have seen, our conditions for them are ideal. Pine trees are very resistant to diseases, and with age, resistance only increases, fires for pine trees are not terrible - there is nothing to burn down there, ground fires of pine trees are easily tolerated, and riding ones, after all, are very rare. And, again, adult pines are more resistant to fires, so fires destroy, first of all, young growth.
Anyone, after the above, will argue with the statement that we did not have forests 150 years ago at all? There was a desert, like the Sahara - bare sand:

This is a fire pit. What we see: the forest stands on bare sand, covered only with needles with cones and a thin layer of humus - just a few centimeters. All pine forests here, and, as far as I know, in the Tyumen region, they stand on such bare sand. These are hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest, if not millions - if this is so, then the Sahara is resting! And all this was literally a hundred and fifty years ago!
The sand is blindingly white, with no impurities at all!
And it seems that you can meet such sands not only in the West Siberian Lowland. For example, there is something similar in Transbaikalia - there is a small area, only five by ten kilometers, which is still "undeveloped" taiga, and the locals consider it a "Miracle of Nature".

And he was given the status of a geological reserve. We have this "miracle" - well, heaps, only this wood, in which we had an excursion, has dimensions of 50 by 60 kilometers, and no one sees any miracles and does not organize reserves - as if it should be so ...
By the way, the fact that Transbaikalia was a continuous desert in the 19th century was documented by photographers of that time, I already laid out what those places looked like before the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway. Here, for example:

A similar picture can be seen in other Siberian places, for example, a view in the "deaf taiga" on the construction of the road to Tomsk:

All of the above convincingly proves that about 150-200 years ago there were practically no forests in Russia. The question arises: were there forests in Russia before. Were! It's just that for one reason or another they were buried by the "cultural layer", like the first floors of the St. Petersburg Hermitage, the first floors in many Russian cities.
I have repeatedly written about this very "cultural layer" here, but I will not be able to resist once again publishing a photo that has recently spread around the Internet:

It seems that in Kazan the "cultural layer" from the first floor, which for many years was considered a "basement" was stupidly removed by a bulldozer, without resorting to the services of archaeologists.
But bog oak, and even more so, is mined without notifying any "scientists" - "historians" and other archaeologists. Yes, such a business still exists - the extraction of fossil oak:

Here is the next picture taken in central Russia- here the river washes away the shore and centuries-old oaks, uprooted at one time, are born:

The author of the photo writes that the oaks are straight and slender, which indicates that they grew in the forest. And the age, with that thickness (the case for the scale is 11 cm) is much older than 200 years.
And again, as Newton said, I do not invent hypotheses: let the "historians" explain why trees older than 150 years are massively found only under the "cultural layer".

http://rosdrevo.ru/ - All-Russian program "Trees - monuments of wildlife"

Http://www.clumba.su/mne-ponyatna-tvoya-vekovaya-pechal/ - I understand your age-old sadness...

Http://sibved.livejournal.com/153207.html - Overgrowing Russia

Http://www.clumba.su/kulturnye-sloi-evrazii/ - about "cultural layers"

Http://vvdom.livejournal.com/332212.html - "Cultural layers" of St. Petersburg

Http://sibved.livejournal.com/150384.html - Chara Desert

Http://humus.livejournal.com/2882049.html - Road construction work. Tomsk region. 1909 Part 1

Http://rosdrevo.ru/index.php?option=com_adsmanager&page=show_ad&adid=77&catid=1&Itemid=85 - pine tree in the Ozerninsky forest in the Kurgan region

Http://www.bogoak.biz/ - bog oak mining

Http://sibved.livejournal.com/167844.html - oaks under clay

Http://sibved.livejournal.com/167844.html?thread=4458660#t4458660 - oak trees in Sharovsky Park

Http://sibved.livejournal.com/159295.html - Krasnoyarsk in the past

Http://sibved.livejournal.com/73000.html - Siberia during the development

Http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=bbcef0f3187e3211e4f2690c6548c4ef&t=1484553 - photo of old Krasnoyarsk

Http://rosdrevo.ru/index.php?option=com_adsmanager&page=show_ad&adid=79&catid=1&Itemid=85 - pine tree planted in the arboretum at the forest nursery on Prosvet in the Kurgan region

Http://rosdrevo.ru/index.php?option=com_adsmanager&page=show_ad&adid=67&catid=1&Itemid=85 - 400 lazy pine near Tobolsk

Http://rosdrevo.ru/index.php?option=com_adsmanager&page=show_ad&adid=95&catid=1&Itemid=85 - pine from national park"Buzuluk Forest"

Http://gorodskoyportal.ru/peterburg/blog/4346102/ - The oldest tree in St. Petersburg.

Http://sibved.livejournal.com/47355.html - 5000-year-old forest unearthed by storms

http://nashaplaneta.su/news/chto_ot_nas_skryvajut_pochemu_derevja_starshe_150_200_let_vstrechajutsja_tolko_pod_kulturnym_sloem/2016-11-27-35423

Russia is the largest forest power in the world. It is all the more surprising that our forests are very young, they are no more than 200 years old.

They would live and live

For the first time I thought about this, considering the paintings of I.I. Shishkin. Something about them bothered me. And one day I realized: beautiful forest in all the pictures it looks a little like a dense one, rather, young animals are depicted. Why did the artist not capture the forest with old, centuries-old trees? Yes, because there was no such forest in those years on the territory of Russia.

In order for the reader to have an understanding of how long a tree can live, I will name the age of some trees. Olive lives 2000 years, royal oak - 2000, berry yew - 2000, juniper - 1700-2000 years, oak - 500-900, cedar pine - 1200 years, sycamore maple - 1100, Siberian larch - 700-900, Siberian cedar - 850, linden - 800, spruce - 300, birch - 100-120 years. The main characters of our forests are pine, spruce, birch, oak.

According to the researchers of the Polar-Alpine Botanical Garden-Institute A.V. Kuzmina and O.A. Goncharova, average age trees Murmansk region about 150 years old. The picture is similar throughout Russia. Don't believe? Get out into the forest and try to find at least one tree older than 200-300 years. It won't work. And such a tree would be visible from afar. For example, a spruce of this age should be at least two meters in diameter! According to archaeologists excavating ancient city Arkaim, in the Chelyabinsk region, coniferous forests grew with trees with a diameter of more than five meters!

There is historical sources, indicating that our forests should have a more advanced age. Travelers of the 18th century reported on the large oaks of Valdai. There are also earlier sources. Alberto Campensee (1490–1542), a Dutch writer, reported on Muscovy in a letter addressed to Pope Clement VII: “In general, they have much more forest than we do. Pine trees are of incredible size, so one tree is enough for the mast of the big ship". In the official history of Muscovy up to the 18th century, the entire territory of Russia was called. Hence the question is natural: where are the trees in Russia that are more than 500 years old? They are not here. There are, of course, individual specimens preserved thanks to man. For example, the so-called Peter's oaks in the Kolomenskoye Museum-Reserve in Moscow, which are about 500 years old.

General rejuvenation

The Tale of Bygone Years mentions a huge forest area - the Okovsky forest, the remains of which are located in the southwestern part of the Tver region. This chronicle was written around 1110-1118. It turns out that the trees in the Okovsky forest should be at least 900 years old, and given that the forest was already standing at the time of writing the Tale and the events described in it, then the age of some species should be more than 1000 years. The basis of the Okovsky forest was spruce forests and oaks. According to the tree age tables, there must be an old forest here. But in the forests of the Tver region, the average age of trees is again about 150 years.

In a normal forest, there should be both old trees and young ones, like in the photo of the late XIX - early XX century - deforestation in Humboldt County, California. Note - thick trees next to thin ones, that is, old with young growth. But... Why don't trees have tops? As if the forest had undergone some kind of catastrophic impact. We can observe a similar picture in the photo of the place where the Tunguska meteorite fell in 1908. Then in Siberia, a forest was felled on an area of ​​2000 km². But the most interesting thing is that there are no old trees of large diameter at the site of the fall of the Tunguska body. That is, at that time a young forest was growing in Siberia! But the main reserves of forests in Russia are concentrated in Siberia.

Another proof of the youth of our forests is the wide distribution of birches. As you know, many of their species grow on the site of clearings, burnt areas, wastelands. Average duration life of a birch is 100–120 years. Based on the average forest age of 150 years, it turns out that most of Russia's forests underwent catastrophic destruction around 1840-1870. But most likely the correct date 1810–1815. After the destruction of forests, the land was entirely a zone of fires. And only by 1840 began their full-scale restoration. In place of the so-called deforestation, new young growth has grown.

What Science Says

It is worth immediately abandoning the version that the forests were destroyed by felling for household needs: for kindling or housing construction. Yes, the forest was used by man. For example, during the time of Catherine II, the trade in ship timber flourished. Oaks were used, according to the German traveler Adam Olearius (1599–1671), "for ritual fire in honor of Perun the Thunderer." But it is impossible to destroy the forest on the territory of, say, the same Tver region in a short period of time. Yes, the Russian people did not treat the forest so barbarously. For him, the forest has always been a breadwinner. Picking mushrooms, berries, medicinal plants, hunting, beekeeping - part of the way of life, a way to survive in the years of crop failure. The forest is an integral part of the folklore and mythology of the Rus. Pain-boshka, Borovik, Goblin, Mokhovik and other characters lived there.

The version of natural fires also does not stand up to criticism. The forest cannot burn all over Russia at the same time. Only if the fires are artificially caused. Let me remind you that in 2010, 2 million hectares of forest burned in 20 regions of the country. Experts immediately dubbed this event a disaster, and alternative researchers said that the forest was set on fire artificially, including from space satellites.

Official science recognizes the youth of forests in Russia. Science also recognizes, for example, that Siberian larch currently grows mainly in burnt areas. The study of the boundaries of its age showed interesting results: trees under 50 years old - 7.1%; 51-100 years old - 3.7%; 101-200 years - 68%; 201-299 years - 20.5%; over 300 years - 0.7%. The age of the main mass of larch is 101–200 years. And according to the table of ages, Siberian larch is listed as a centenarian and, under normal conditions, should reach the age of 700–900 years. Where are these centenarians in their native forests? Logically modern science- burned down. Since "forest fires are the main mechanism for reforestation, replacement of old trees with young trees", therefore, natural fires do not allow trees to live to an advanced age. However, there is a unique natural source wood like bog oak or, in other words, "ebony". It is mined from the depths of rivers and swamps, in those places where the oak grew many thousands of years ago. The black color of the tree acquires more than 1000 years of staining. The diameter of some specimens is sometimes more than two meters! This means that modern oaks may well and should be much older and, accordingly, larger.

Alexey Kozhin

Photography - shutterstock.com ©

Continue reading in the June issue (No. 6, 2015) of the magazine "Miracles and Adventures"