what evidence is there that redwood stands devoid of a diverse collection of other plants does better than a pure collection of redwoods.
“what evidence is there that redwood stands devoid of a diverse collection of other plants does better than a pure collection of redwoods.”
the most impressive stands of redwoods have little more than ferns below them.
Their taproots are often 200 feet below the tree. They get their food deep.
“what evidence is there that redwood stands devoid of a diverse collection of other plants does better than a pure collection of redwoods.”
have you ever hiked through a 2,000 year old virgin stand of redwoods? If you had, you’d know that there is essentially nothing of significance in terms of biomass in the forest EXCEPT old growth redwood trees and their fallen needles. Over the centuries, forest fires generally kill out everything but the large redwoods because the redwood bark is nearly fireproof, so ultimately there’s nothing left but the ancient redwoods. The canopy of the giants also absorbs almost all of the sunlight and rain before they make it to the forest floor, depriving everything else of the ingredients to thrive.
I read that redwoods do like some other trees in the neighborhood, Alder for example.
I don’t know about a lot of the others, because the redwoods will tower above other species and deprive them of sunlight.
Called dominance.