And the forest is mysterious. Exposing an alternative story - why there are no old trees in the forests Why the age of trees does not exceed 200 years

Most of our forests are young. Their age is from a quarter to a third of life. Apparently, in the 19th century, certain 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 the modern "Instructions for conducting forest management in the forest fund of Russia." This did not add clarity, rather the opposite. But there was a certainty that the matter was unclean.

The first surprising fact that was confirmed is the dimension of the quarterly 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.

For example, in the forests of Udmurtia, quarters have a rectangular shape, the width of 1 quarter is 1067 meters, or exactly 1 way verst. Until that moment, I was firmly convinced that all these forest roads were the work of Soviet foresters. But what the hell did they need to mark out 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 cutting clearings, 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 that it was 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 tilted by about 10 degrees and is directed not to the geographic north pole, but, apparently, to the magnetic one (the markings were made using a compass, not a GPS navigator), which should have been, in this time to be located approximately 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.

This is what typical clearings in our forests look like. Grass, sometimes bushes, but no trees. There are no signs of regular maintenance.

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 specimens (in Udmurtia - 2 pines) that reach 1.2 m, but their age is also not more than 200 years.

Wheeler Peak (4,011 m above sea level), New Mexico, is home to bristlecone pines, one of the longest-lived trees on Earth. The age of the oldest specimens is estimated at 4,700 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?

Look at the map of Russian forests:

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 of them are derived forests that have formed on the site of primary forests as a result of logging, clearing, and 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 the middle lane are clearly covered by 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 with young ones ... "

All this is called "the 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 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 burned down. 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 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, it can be said with confidence that the scientific concept of “the 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 it.

We will have to admit that our forests either burned intensively (beyond any norm) and constantly burned throughout the 19th century (which in itself is inexplicable and is not recorded anywhere), or burned down at a time as a result of some incident, which is why the scientific world violently denies, having no no arguments, except that nothing of the kind is recorded in the official 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. Here is a photo of the largest oak tree in Belarus. It grows in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. 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.

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. This indicates the composition of the former oak forest, the remains of which lie at the bottom. In the Gomel region there is the river Besed, the bottom of which is dotted with bog oak, although now there are only water meadows and fields around. 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.

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 block 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.

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 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 "the dynamics of random disturbances." This theory proposes that forest fires are 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 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 neither the Great Tartaria nor the Great Northern Way got into it. Atlantis with the fallen moon didn't even fit. The one-time destruction of 200...400 million hectares of forest is even easier to imagine, and to hide, 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 do not happen by themselves ...

basis: article by A. Artemyev

What is the age of the trees in Russia or where are 200 years from

I was just present at Alexey Kungurov's Internet conference when he first announced this number 200, but the meaning of the statement was that in Russia there are no trees OLDER than 200 years old.

The Internet does not give the average age of trees growing in Russia, but according to indirect data, the date of 150 years is still the most accurate.

In his article, “In Russia, there are almost no trees older than 200 years?”, To which there are many links on the Internet, the author of the article, Alexei Artemyev, says that the plains and the middle lane are covered by “an obviously young forest. It is unlikely that you will find a tree older than 150 years in the forest. Even a standard tree age drill is 36 cm long and is designed for a tree that is 130 years old.”

Average age of trees in Russia

There is an official map of the forests of Russia, and so according to it, the age of the forest is also about 150 years old.

From the brochure: “On the border of the Moscow, Kaluga and Tula regions there is a Sanatorium (Resort) “Velegozh”. Only 114 km from Moscow and 84 km from Tula. The territory of the sanatorium is located in a pine forest, on the high bank of the Oka River. The average age of trees is 115-120 years.

There is such a famous Kazan (Volga) Federal University.

Here are the graphs from the training manual, at the course of dendroecology (Method of tree ring analysis):

Please note that the starting dates of the charts are 1860.

But what is said in the work of A.V. Kuzmina, O.A. Goncharova:

"PABSI KSC RAS, Apatity, RF CLASSIFICATION AND TYPING OF PINE STAND ELEMENTS ON THE BASIS OF ANALYSIS OF PROBABILITY DENSITY DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE CLASSES OF RADIAL INCREMENTS

“Forest communities on the Kola Peninsula are at the northern limit of distribution. The total area of ​​the taiga zone within the peninsula is 98 thousand km2

The studies were carried out on the territory of the Murmansk region near the village of Alakurtti (Kola Peninsula). The territory of the region is located between 66o03′ and 69o57′ N.S. and 28o25′ and 41o26′ E. Most of the territory is located outside the Arctic Circle.

The purpose of the study is to develop a classification of plants by productivity based on the analysis of the distribution of absolute indicators of annual radial increments.

A compact forest stand consisting of 30 pines that do not have signs of anthropogenic impact was chosen as a model object.

forest communities on the Kola Peninsula, 150 years, average age of trees in Russia With the Pressler drill, core samples were taken from each pine, drilling was carried out to the core. The study of cores for the number of annual layers was carried out by an automated system for telemetric analysis of wood cores (Kuzmin A.V. et al., 1989).

The average age of plants in the selected model area is 146 years.

Based on the similarity of rows, trees are differentiated into groups,

Group B includes 15 trees (50% of the total number) - the average age of pines in group B is 150 years.

Group B includes 8 trees (27% of the total) - the average age of pines in group B is 146 years.

Group D includes 4 trees of age classes 6, 8 and 9 - the average age of pines in group G is 148 years

In total, each selected group includes plants of almost all age classes. The average age of those occupying an intermediate position, groups B, C and D, is close to: 150, 146 and 148 years.

So, where the forests went 150 years ago is unknown, but it is quite possible to assume that they were destroyed. Probably not only forests. And it will be even more terrible.

But the whole chronology of Oleg and Alexandra - just falls on this date 150 years. For which they are very grateful. By the way, just Alexei Kungurov presented in his conferences a lot of photos confirming that the funnels were just all over the planet.

The forest communities of the Kola Peninsula are the northernmost in the European part of Russia, as they are located on the border of the northern limit of distribution. The entire area of ​​the peninsula is divided into the forest-tundra subzone (46 thousand km2) and the northern taiga subzone (52 thousand km2) (Zaitseva I.V. et al., 2002).

The selected model stand is continental forests in nature.

The experimental area is characterized by the following parameters:

• Soil moisture is average.
• The relief of the area is flat,
• Stand composition: 10С.
• Type of forests: lichen-cowberry.
• Undergrowth: birch, willow.
• Undergrowth: spruce rarely in groups, pine in groups abundantly.

The characteristics of the surveyed Scotch pine plants are summarized in Table 1:

The examined trees were divided into six age classes (grades 5-9, 12). Plants of the 10th and 11th age classes were not found in the surveyed area. The most massive (9 specimens) is class 9, which includes trees aged 161-180 years. The smallest are the 5th and 12th grades of age (2 trees each), i.e. the youngest and oldest plants are poorly represented in the surveyed area. 6th, 7th and 8th age classes contain 5, 6 and 6 trees respectively. The average age class is 8 ± 0.3.

Previously, it was believed that the distribution of the timing of the passage of phenological phases in woody plants on the Kola Peninsula is subject to the law of normal distribution. (O.A. Goncharova, A.V. Kuzmin, E.Yu. Poloskova, 2007)

In order to analyze the distribution of the probability density values ​​of annual radial increments (HF) in the studied 30 specimens of Scots pine, we checked the empirical RP of HF. The calculated RWF of hydraulic fracturing in most cases does not correspond to the laws of normal distribution. Classes from 5 to 9 contain one tree each, the RWF of the hydraulic fracturing of which corresponds to normal indicators, in the age class 12 such data are not established.

An analysis of the distribution of hydraulic fracturing values ​​relative to the average values ​​for each individual showed that in most plants, hydraulic fracturing values ​​below the average value predominate. In trees 1, 9, 11, 16, the ratio of hydraulic fracturing values ​​below or above the average is approximately the same with a slight predominance towards lower values. In pine 12, the ratio of hydraulic fracturing values ​​is similarly below or above average, approximately the same, but with a slight predominance towards higher values. The dominance of large hydraulic fracturing values ​​has not been established relative to the average value.

The next step was to classify the surveyed set of trees by productivity based on the distribution of the absolute values ​​of annual radial increments. The conjugation system of probability density distributions of hydraulic fracturing values ​​was analyzed using the nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficient. Further work took into account only reliable correlation coefficients (G.N. Zaitsev, 1990). Positive conjugated relationships are revealed.

The trees are differentiated into groups based on the similarity of the series of probability density distributions by the number of identified correlations.

Group A includes tree 25, this pine belongs to age class 9, its age is above average, within the age class it is correlated with all trees. For this tree, the maximum number of correlations with neighboring plants (27) is set, there is no conjugation with plants 2 and 19, which differ in the minimum of correlations. The specified tree is defined as a reference for the considered set of trees.

Group B includes 15 trees (50% of the total). Representatives of this group have correlations from 23 to 26. Group B contains trees of all identified age classes, except for the youngest (class 5). The average age of group B trees is 150 years. Most fully represented in the category of plants of the 7th and 8th age classes.

Group B was divided into 8 trees (27% of the total). There are 18 to 21 conjugated links for each tree. Here, age class 9 (5 trees) is most represented, single specimens - 5, 6, 7th age classes (for 1 plant). The average age of trees in group B is 146 years.

Group D includes 4 plants of age classes 6, 8 and 9. Trees of this part of the studied forest stand are characterized by 12-15 conjugated links. The average age of the trees of group D is 148 years.

The specimens included in the D group are distinguished by a minimum of correlations with the rest of the representatives - conjugated connections 7 and 3, respectively, these are trees 2 and 19. These trees are representatives of age classes 5 and 6, that is, the youngest classes.

In total, each selected group includes trees of almost all age classes. The average age of groups B, C and D, which occupied an intermediate position, is close to: 150, 146 and 148 years. So the age of Russian trees is not 200 years old, but much less...

Alexander Galakhov.

And finally: our planet is overgrown with forests. And this phenomenon is quite recent. Examples with photos:

An interesting excerpt from Alexey Kungurov's answer

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.
The 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 were 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 cutting 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 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 magnetic(marking was carried out using a compass, and not a GPS navigator), which should have been located at that time about 1000 kilometers in the direction of 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 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 are regularly cleared by special teams from overgrown shrubs and trees.
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.

In different sources, the numbers differ slightly, but not significantly. Pine and spruce should survive under normal conditions 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. 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 at the same time for a long 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. The entire European part is marked in deep blue. 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 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 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 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 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, 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. 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. There are 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 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, it is safe to say 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, which is why the scientific world furiously denies, having no arguments, except that nothing of the kind is recorded in the official 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. 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 a similar amount of free labor. 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

One of the arguments against the fact that a large-scale catastrophe could have happened 200 years ago is the myth about "relic" forests that supposedly grow in the Urals and Western Siberia.
For the first time, the idea that something was wrong with our “relic” forests, I came across ten years ago, when I accidentally discovered that in the “relic” 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 question local experts on 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 must be calculated differently, which I do not understand anything about and 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. The latter term does not mean at all that the plants themselves and the forests in which they grow are old, respectively, the presence of a large number of relict 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 firms 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, and therefore 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 is 300-400 (500) years old, prickly spruce is 400-600 years old, and Siberian larch is 500 years old under normal conditions, and up to 900 years in especially favorable conditions!
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. The guys from our Chelyabinsk State University, who participated in excavations in the area of ​​Arkaim and the "country of cities" in the south of the Chelyabinsk region, said that where the steppe is now, in the days of Arkaim there were coniferous forests, and in some places there were giant trees, the diameter of the trunks was which 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 went, says 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 a 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.


The last photo shows saw cuts of pine trees that grew in a dense spruce forest and in a 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 photographs 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. Another large selection of 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 in the vast territory of the Urals and Siberia, there are actually 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.

P.S. And this is another article about "relict" forests

Why in Russia all the trees are very young and in Siberia the average age of trees is only 150 years old, in America there are huge sequoias that are 2000 years old or more. Why such a huge difference? And why do we have coal in Russia and not in America?

stone forest

The pine lives 400 years and individual specimens in Siberia reach a little more and die, pines rarely survive longer, because now Siberia is very harsh conditions. But in Kemerovo, coal is mined in mines. Where did this Coal come from, which warms us, if not from pressed ancient huge trees, which for some reason mysteriously disappeared from us?

How was coal formed? This question will not be answered by any academician, let alone the Internet. Coal was formed only in a layer of 5-7 meters from old tree species, compressed and turned into coal - compressed forest. Some kind of plate fell from above and pressed it, heating them at the same time. What force lifted hundreds of tons of rocks into the air and covered these trees from above, if you need to go down into the mine quite deep? What is the origin of coal? Where did all our sequoias go, like in America? They obviously were! We apparently have compressed coal from these sequoias. But there is no coal in America, because there was a more favorable climate and all the Sequoias survived.

Maybe it's because of the Tunguska meteorite? The Tunguska meteorite fell on June 30, 1908 in the area of ​​the Podkamennaya Tunguska River, an event called the "Tunguska phenomenon" happened at 4 o'clock in the morning. But, if the Tunguska meteorite exploded during its passage over Europe, then its explosion would be capable of completely destroying a city like St. Petersburg. Thank God that this did not happen, but something happened, because there is no forest in St. Petersburg - everywhere young growth and the most ancient trees were clearly planted intentionally near the Peter and Paul Fortress - there were also 300-year-old oak and linden
and Oranienbaum, ancient trees remain, but all the trees around are relatively young. No wonder they say that there was some unthinkable cataclysm in Nature in 1812-1814, and Napoleon lost to the Russians, because he froze in Russia.

The tree-ring method reflects the consequences of all major volcanic eruptions extremely poorly - the eruption of a tropical volcano in the territory of modern Mexico or Ecuador in 1258, the underwater volcano Kuwae in the vicinity of the Pacific islands of Vanuatu in 1458, the mysterious eruption of 1809 and the explosion of the Tambora volcano on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa in 1815.

What kind of cold was it then? In 1812, when Napoleon went to Russia, he was stopped by the Russian Frost and Hitler was also stopped by the Russian frost. Just Santa Claus - Russian bodyguard. But I have a question: Where does this frost come from at the right time, in the right place, and where did the permafrost come from in Siberia, when it used to be warm in Russia, Russia is the homeland of elephants?

Everyone remembers the Palms in Astrakhan Strays, Jan Jansen:

17th century engraving from a book by Jan Streis. The excesses of the Cossacks of Stepan Razin in the captured Astrakhan.

Orange trees grew in St. Petersburg in Oranienbaum Lomonosov near St. Petersburg - this is the Orange City - On all the ancient engravings of the city - rows of orange trees, moreover, right in the ground, and not in the greenhouse.

Oranienbaum. Engraving by A.I. Rostovtsev, 1716

Oranienbaum. Engraving by A.I. Rostovtsev, 1716. Sailboats went straight to the palace, which already stood in 1716. Oraniybaum where oranges used to grow in open ground. #Peter #Lomonosov

Engraving. Grand Palace Oranienbaum. Middle of the 18th century.

Engraving. Grand Palace Oranienbaum. Middle of the 18th century.

Trees are very sensitive to the slightest changes in climatic conditions - an increase or decrease in temperature, solar energy and other factors. All these events are reflected in the shape and thickness of annual rings - layers of wood in the trunk, which is formed during the growing season. It is believed that dark rings correspond to unfavorable environmental conditions, and light rings correspond to favorable ones. and now, when trees are cut down, our entire core is completely dark - these were not favorable years for the growth of trees.

Michael Mann (Michael Mann) from the University of Pennsylvania at State College (USA) and his colleagues checked how accurately annual rings reflect the short-term temperature drop that occurs after the strongest tropical volcanic eruptions.

To do this, Mann and his colleagues compared graphs of seasonal temperature fluctuations from 1200 to the present, which were obtained using a "conventional" climate model and a technique that included analysis of tree growth rings. The traditional model tracks changes in the intensity of solar radiation and fluctuations in the energy balance of the planet, which is reflected in the increase or decrease in average temperatures.

The second technique used, as input data, sections of trunks obtained in 60 high-altitude forest areas at the so-called "treeline" - the maximum height at which ordinary trees can grow. Local climatic conditions only minimally meet the needs of woody vegetation, and abnormally high or low average annual temperatures are well reflected in the rings.

Because of this, chronological errors can accumulate in slices as you move from relatively modern rings to more ancient ones.

And you know. What I think is that our forest simply did not grow in Russia due to abnormally low temperatures. And the dark cores of the trees are proof of this - this is the Ice Age that affected our trees.

The truth is somewhere near.