100 years in tuolomne…

Really cool! But I'm so confused…why is there so much vegetation now compared to 100 years ago?
I thought the "circle of life" would kill off big trees, and introduce new ones so vegetation would remain somewhat constant?
Looking at the photos makes me think trees were just invented in 1903.

I'm pretty dumb when it comes to trees and plants, so please feel free to enlighten me.
-Chris

"…why is there so much vegetation now compared to 100 years ago?"

Fire Suppression.

You can see it over and over in "100 Years" style photography books.

On the Ken Burns series on the national parks, they talked about how sheepherders were grazing flocks there from the mid-1800's, also a lot of tree-cutting was going on before there was actual protection for the newly designated parks. So I suspect if you went back 200 years, you might see more trees.

One hundred years ago, this was not much of a park. In the late 19th century, there was lots of sheep herding that took place around or above Tuolumne Meadows. John Muir, himself, was herding during his first summer here. The sheep would mow down everything, which is how they got the nickname of hooved locusts. The miners used to cut down trees everywhere they wanted to build cabins and to shore up their mine walls. So, lots of people were using up vegetation then. Once the National Park Service took over, things were preserved a little better, but not by much. Conservation has increased now to the point where you better not even drive your car's tires off the pavement by a foot or two.

Also, during some periods, there have been various infestations by insects. These have killed off lots of trees, but in some narrow areas near the Tioga Road, insecticides were used extensively. So, you can find lots of trees in one place, and then twenty yards away it is all dead wood.

What I am suggesting is that up there, things vary a lot over very short distances and over short spans of time.

–B.G.–

""…why is there so much vegetation now compared to 100 years ago?"

Fire Suppression."

There has beeen little to no fire suppression in yosemite national park for about 50 years. Especially at altitudes above 6000 ft. In fact that has been the case in most national parks. Mining and Sheep before the park was created did much damage. Also there was a lot more snow on the ground 200 years ago. Global warming has significantly reduced the number of glaciers and permanent snow fields in the Sierra.

>"The miners used to cut down trees everywhere they wanted to build cabins and to shore up their mine walls."

True that, but the much bigger impact of 19th-century mining was the making of charcoal to smelt ores. NV and Eastern CA still haven't recovered.

Amen David. As a Nevadan I can attest to the validity of your observation.

And STILL this state's legislature feels the heavy hand of mining interests. Gold mining in northern Nevada is big business. And gypsum mining (to make your drywalls) is huge in southern Nevada.

Re: "True that, but the much bigger impact of 19th-century mining was the making of charcoal to smelt ores"

This is one of the most common forms of deforestation during the 1700 to 1800 on the east coast.

The biggest source of iron ore at the time was in the Appalachian mountains and so the trees anywhere within a big radius of the mines became the source of fuel.

It was welcomed by the general public at the time. One of the byproducts of the process was that it created grazing and farm land, saving land owners from having to provide the labor.

Forests were considered a waste of land. A cleared area was a food/money source and generally welcomed.

This type of thinking is still popular with a lot of greedy land owners.