Beavers and their dam building

[TransformerRobot]

Beavers have to take down trees to make their homes, and a dam for more than 1 beaver would need quite a few trees to put together.

 

Are beavers bad for forests?

[FarmForest Research]

Beavers don't always need to build a dam. Some live in the banks of rivers or lakes. In areas where they do dam streams, they create wetlands which are extremely important in dynamics of forests and the ecosystem in general. These increase diversity and create habitats for many species. They are part of the biodynamic of North American forests especially has they have been mostly exterminated in Europe. Scotland has just successfully reintroduced them which has had mixed feelings by the inhabitants of that country. There has been a continuos battle between beaver lovers and beaver haters in my area of Canada due to flooding of agricultural land.

[CaptainPanic]

Here's an article of a 850 meter long beaver dam. The article also gives some additional interesting facts on beavers.

 

And here's that same dam on Google Maps.

 

Anyway, define "bad for a forest".

If you mean "bad for biodiversity", then no, it's not bad. It's even good.

If you mean "bad for wood production", then perhaps it could be bad becuse you have less surface for the forest. At the same time, this artificial beaver lake may prevent some droughts and fires. So, it may have benefits too.

[TransformerRobot]

Here's an article of a 850 meter long beaver dam. The article also gives some additional interesting facts on beavers.

 

And here's that same dam on Google Maps.

 

Anyway, define "bad for a forest".

If you mean "bad for biodiversity", then no, it's not bad. It's even good.

If you mean "bad for wood production", then perhaps it could be bad becuse you have less surface for the forest. At the same time, this artificial beaver lake may prevent some droughts and fires. So, it may have benefits too.

 

I meant were they bad for creating cleaner air for us to breathe, which is what trees do.

[Ophiolite]

An in depth, long term scientific experiment is underway in Scotland to assess the impact of reintroducing beavers. More information here and here. This is an officially sanctioned release. More contraversial was a secret release of beavers into the Tay. See here.

[too-open-minded]

Are humans bad for the planet?

[Harry Potterish]

Hello,

 

Beavers strongly influence the environment that they live in. By building dams on watercourses, they raise the surface water level which is thought to be the most important effect of their presence in the area inhabited by man. he floodings created as a result of water damming provide easier access to the distant food base. A newly created pond also provides security, as the beaver, which is a poor walker on the ground, always escapes to the water in case of emergency. These are some of the reasons for which beaver family members keep trying to maintain a few, up to over ten, dams on the longest possible river sequence. As a result of such actions the water flow is slowed down. When a couple of families settle down along one river, the sizes of water rises are smaller, and the watercourse becomes more natural. The activity of beavers within the boundaries of their area may start the process of re-naturalization of watercourse artificially regulated by man. Digging dens and canals, as well as creating floodings, initiate the natural swampy processes. As a result of dens wash-out and collapsing, numerous meanders and shallow waters are created, which are then overgrown by aquatic vegetation and rush-plants.

 

 

From the ecological point of view, the presence of beavers in the environment and the effects of their activity are positive. The way of settling and living, as well as feeding selectivity of this species significantly influence the course of the natural transformation of ecosystems (ecological succession). Sadly, in terms of forest and agricultural production, the beavers' impact on their surroundings (trees gnawing, flooding the green crops) is negative. Although the character of environmental changes triggered by beavers is always similar, its evaluation may be very different, depending on the way this problem is judged.

 

Best Regards,

Harry Potterish

[Greg H.]

Are humans bad for the planet?

 

For the planet? No. We're incapable of doing any long standing damage on a scale large enough to significantly impact the Earth itself.

 

For every living thing on the planet including ourselves? Yes - as a species we are incredibly arrogant and stupid and seem bent on destroying everything around us as rapidly as possible.

 

Oh, I think my misanthropy is showing.

[arc]

They are neither bad nor good, they simply change the environment to their needs which in nature helps some species and challenges others. A series of dams on a tributary would create a habitat for a specific variety of species but would challenge a trout or salmon to run its length and locate sediment free gravel to spawn. The water temperature would vary greatly between the two environs, benefiting greatly one over the other to their respective inhabitants. The salmon need fast cool waters, dams on their habitat would not be beneficial. The salmons environment would attract its own specific variety of life, some of which may be shared with other environs.

 

Now, am I referring to beavers or humans?

[John Cuthber]

For the planet? No. We're incapable of doing any long standing damage on a scale large enough to significantly impact the Earth itself.

 

Even if you ignore global warming, and you shouldn't, we are perfectly capable of causing world wide damage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

[overtone]

Beavers eat trees, and fell more for food than for dams and lodges (if you look at a beaver dam or lodge, you will find most of the sticks used in them are stripped of bark and have teethmarks: they are remains of meals). This will change the forest in newly introduced beaver country (prediction: after a while aspen will no longer be found much along shorelines, permanent ponds will become much more common and generally larger) but a beaver that actually destroyed its forest would rapidly starve.

Edited June 10, 2013 by overtone

[pippo]

nothing wrong with beavers- just when man intervenes/manages, we end up with either too many or too few. Its too many in a "managed" environment thats bad. Like too many wolves/alligators reintroduced, etc. Right now, for example, there are too many bison in Yellowstone. "managed" ecosystem. Foresters and ecologists say "the best management is no management".

[Moontanman]

Where I live I personally know of a beaver damn at least a mile long, maybe quite a bit more but since most of what they eat are small trees and the big trees are already swamp trees their impact on the trees is small, in fact if you didn't know what you were looking for you might miss the damn and the water it holds, this particular damn is only a foot high and it's the only place I've been riding along in the swamp and realized the water along the side of the road was higher than the road... Alligators tend to keep them in check...

[Delta1212]

Even if you ignore global warming, and you shouldn't, we are perfectly capable of causing world wide damage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

It'd still mostly be damage to the biosphere and some (geologically) brief climate effects. The planet itself would be largely unaffected.

[Phi for All]

Are humans bad for the planet?

For the planet? No. We're incapable of doing any long standing damage on a scale large enough to significantly impact the Earth itself.

 

For every living thing on the planet including ourselves? Yes - as a species we are incredibly arrogant and stupid and seem bent on destroying everything around us as rapidly as possible.

 

Oh, I think my misanthropy is showing.

Even if you ignore global warming, and you shouldn't, we are perfectly capable of causing world wide damage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

It'd still mostly be damage to the biosphere and some (geologically) brief climate effects. The planet itself would be largely unaffected.

 

!

Moderator Note

Let's please stick to the topic. I hate splitting posts off into unplanned threads.