Deadfall: a tangled mass of fallen trees and branches

>>946003
Depends. Deadfall is essential to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Without the rotting down wood, the forest would lose out on all that protist and fungal feeding behaviour which is important for making nutrients available to the rest of the woodland., not to mention all of the other species that depend on it.

Steal all the deadfall to boil potatoes and fuck up a forest, bro.

True story.

>>946004
you won't "fuck up a forest" by collecting deadfall, ecosystems are more robust than that. there will be less life, like around popular camp spots, less insects and birds, probably everything else also.

>>946010
thats what he means by 'fuck up', you retard.

Removing deadfall = a discernible effect on the local environment

>>946003
how long is a piece of string?

too many factors for a single answer. Nutrients/quality of the soil, number, type of trees, latitude, altitude, quantity of sunlight, pest species, local air quality, all factors that will effect tree growth.

If you OWNED the land, which I assume you don't as you're asking NEET-tier /out/ questions you could allocate a portion of your land to short-rotation coppice or another fuel crop to sustain your heating and cooking needs.

>>946004
>Steal all the deadfall to boil potatoes and fuck up a forest, bro.

>forest gets fucked
>trees dies
>more deadfall
>stuff comes back to normal

>>946004
>Deadfall is essential to maintaining a healthy ecosystem
>>946010
>there will be less life

So what I'm reading is... the forest doesn't produce that much... or that a cooking stove would consume too much.

>>946019
Use the pic as a reference. Or use your own circumstance as a reference. Or maybe you have no references?
Perhaps it is you who is the NEET.

>>946143
This guy gets it.

But honestly. Personal experiences would help here. Would a wood cooking stove really consumer so many branches per meal?

>>946004
>>946019
Get it
>>946010
>>946143
Fail at biology

File: a9r9X1.jpg (137KB, 879x577px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 879x577px

>>946143

>forest gets fucked
>trees die
>more deadfall
>no canopy to starve underbrush of sunlight
>young trees cant compete for water and nutrients
>becomes scrubland

>>946144
>Perhaps it is you who is the NEET.

I'm not the one asking retarded hypothetical questions.

But let me indulge you with an equally retarded answer

>it will give you enough to fire your stove, for sure, without a doubt, 10 hectars provides exactly zobogle amount of deadfall per exactly one month, equally and consistently through the entire year regardless of conditions and location.

>>946004
This, in my view if its not covered in deadfall, its not a based "forest" its some faggy "woods".

Deforestation is a real issue. A lot of young trees don't equal a forest.

>>946003
If you own the land, you're actually better off dropping one tree and curing firewood than you are consistently using up deadfall, from a nutrient return point of view. But either way, it's going to be pretty low impact if you're using a small wood stove and only using it for cooking. Most of the nutrients come from atmospheric nitrogen during rainfalls. You could actually torch an entire area, which would increase shubbery growth, drawing in more fauna, increasing fertilizer deposits, and still have a net gain. Really, it's only development and pollution that cause problems, nature can take care of everything else on it's own.

>>946170
>becomes scrubland
>more edible herbs show up
>fruit tress on edges of the remaining forest
>more space to plant stuff
Still a win, I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R8Y9ZR5V7s

According to this the magic number is 1 pound of deadfall per meal.

Now we just need someone to go into the woods, clear a specified area of all deadfall, weight it. Then wait and check how long it takes to produce more.

>>946563
>people use remaining trees for fires
>trees gone
>use scrub for fires
>scrub becomes desert