The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study was conducted in the White Mountains of New Hampshire during the year of 1963. An estimated 8,300 acres make up The Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, which is collectively owned by the USDA Forest Service, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, and different scientists, which is where the study took place.
The purpose of this study was to better understand “the response of northern hardwood forest ecosystems to large-scale disturbances such as deforestation or acidic deposition” (TIEE). In other words, scientists wanted to explore how land would be affected when trees are gone within the area. They also wanted to determine the amount of time it would take for an affected forest to recuperate.
This study was carried out by comparing two different watersheds, or two forests. One being The Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest and the other being a nearby forest that was left to reflourish for 60 years.
Different factors considered included: precipitation, stream flow, evapotranspiration, calcium, potassium, among a few others. The final result concluded that taking away trees from a forest heavy area would allow more sunlight to help flourish light-dependent species. Since there will be a higher photosynthesis and respiration rate, then there will also be an increase in plant reproductivity (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment). In addition more rain will also reach the floor’s surface resulting in an increase of temperature and moisture, also contributing to the rapid growth of species.
Although different plant species were quickly growing, a lingering question remained. It was “whether nutrient and organic matter lost from the forest floor would be regained before the next cutting rotation” (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment).
It was concluded that this would not be the case. “Organic matter on the forest floor would accumulate to a depth equivalent to pre-cutting levels in more than 65 years and biogeochemical flux and storage of nutrients would return to that of a normal hardwood forest (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment).Essentially, this shows that regardless of plant species growing back at faster rates, there were more long term losses and nutrients would take much longer to become surplus again.
In conclusion, forest ecosystems must be given time to regenerate the nutrients they once had since they have been proven to take much longer to regenerate than the actual plant species. As a result, it has been legally established that forests must be provided with “enough time before the next cutting rotation,” (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment). These are legal periods of 110-120 years in which forests are given a break to allow them to nourish themselves and recuperate the lost nutrients.
Bibliography
Adam Welman, Cynthia Berger. “Overview of the Ecological Background.” Hubbard Brook Streamflow Response to Deforestation (Overview), https://tiee.esa.org/vol/v1/data_sets/hubbard/hubbard_overview.html.
“An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment.” YouTube, uploaded by Sophie Izzo, 18 October 2020, https://youtu.be/isFi5qxWzsE
“Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Overview and Organization.” Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Overview and Organization | Hubbard Brook, https://hubbardbrook.org/about.