William Pokorny wrote:

> 
> I guess what doesn't look natural to me is simply that the environment
> overhead would not naturally support the ground cover we see. A much older,
> dense and mixed forrest perhaps would support the damp and lush ground
> cover we see and the fallen trees.
> 
Really?  You believe that there is no possible combination of natural 
factors which affect top cover could ever possibly result in a localized 
stand such as this?  Soil makeup, mudslides, underground streams, 
windstorms, rainfall, flood, climate, season, light exposure, fire, 
pest, disease, plant interaction,...maybe because I am no naturalist, 
nature seems to allow more possibilities than I can usually account for. 
  I agree that with that much apparent light exposure it would likely 
not be so completely bereft of scrub or variety in tree size anywhere in 
the camera's view.  But while the relative openess and reduced range of 
species seems unusual to me, it does not seem impossible.

Post a reply to this message