"Are woods different in Europe and the United States?" Topic

I live in eastern Pennsylvania. All of the naturally occurring woods in my area are very dense and typically have a lot of undergrowth,

I sometimes see references in wargames rules to light woods or similar, which I assume refers to woods where the trees are spaced further spar and/or there is little or no undergrowth.

Does that sort of thing occur naturally in Europe or the British Isles? If so,why/how?

Thanks.

i'm certainly no botanist, but i believe it has to do with old growth vs. new growth forests. old growth forests have less undergrowth, and i believe Europe still has more of them. Early America had a lot more, but those days are gone.

It happens here in the US too. I remember hiking in North Carolina one summer. Under the lower branches there was almost no undergrowth. So you could see quite a way, the trees were not a serious impediment to walking.
The rhododendrons, on the other hand, were nigh well impassable.

My experience I traveling in Europe is that there is a vast difference in the nature of woods between the two continents. There are always local exceptions, but in general, forests in North American are larger in area, have considerably more undergrowth, specially on the edges and have a higher density of actual trees. European forests tend to be much smaller, have little to no undergrowth and are much more open.

Pennsylvania is an interesting place. I'm from there and live there and you have lots of different types of forest. Down where I live in the Susquehanna valley, you have lots of forests between farms that are full of dense wild undergrowth, some of which is almost impossible to navigate. Then, up in western and northern PA you get the more expansive areas of forests that cover the mountains where there is more room between taller trees with less undergrowth in some places, but more dense in others. Some areas of large expanses of rhodedendron that are low, but large bushes which make sight difficult, but not necessarily navigating (at least compared to the undergrowth in some places). They are often described as "old growth" areas, but that is a relative term since almost all of Northern PA was logged clean in the late 1800s and early turn of the century. We actually don't have many areas where the growth is original or undisturbed from the colonial era.

looks like i was wrong. I just looked up old growth forests on wikipedia, and saw that the US more than Europe. oops…

I can speak to this especially in regards to managed forest in Germany. For centuries the "woods" have been managed and trees replanted in rows. You can navigate though most of Germany without a compass. I trained for selection in Europe and when I got to West Virginia with all the mining and dead fall and undergrowth I had a rude awakening about cross country navigation. Forest Minsters in Germany manage maintain and manicure their areas of responsibility with typical German efficiency and attention to detail. In the Eastern United States there are some forests that are managed but nothing near the extent of what you would encounter say in the Black Forest.

VR
James Mattes

The forests I saw during a train ride through Germany were all planted, man-made. The trees were in rows with next to no undergrowth at all. I believe the Hurtgen Forest was one of these, with well-established lines of fire (at least by the defenders).

I have seen pine barrens along the east coats, where the trees have choked most of the underbrush. Here and there trees are downed by lightning or wind and undergrowth sises up. In the original forests of the East, Indians burned off undergrowth to make hunting grounds. Braddock's army was decimated on such a hunting ground.

Edit: James beat me to the punch. I stopped in mid-thread to have a conversation with a woman.

The character of wooded areas depends on latitude and land use. Lattitude determines what kinds of plants grow. Altitude does too – once you get above a certain height trees stop growing.

Land use is also a major determinant. Civil War battlefields look different today because they aren't farmed – no major farm animals are grazing in them. They have retreated not only to their pre-farming state but to an even more ancient pre-human colonization state. So, for example, if you go visit the Hornet's Nest at Shiloh you can't see further than 10 feet but during the War you could see a significant distance.

One final note I picked up from tankers. Woods are never a problem for main battle tanks. If the trees are too closely spaced it means they are light enough to drive over. If they are too heavy to drive over they will naturally be spaced far enough apart that you can go around them.

Woods very pretty regionally in North America. Go hike Oregon and then hike Northern Minnesota and you will see huge differences.

There are lots of Old Growth forests and New Growth forests in North America. A lot more mosquitos, too (though that's not true of all of North America).

A lot of woodland in Europe has been shaped by humans for at least several hundred years, and dense, impenetrable forest is not much use as a resource….

Also, firefighting efforts in the US have altered the nature of forests. Where before forest fires would clear out the undergrowth, fallen trees and dead growth in large swaths, for much of the 20th century those fires were routinely (and rather effectively) fought. While this did much to preserve wildlife and protect private property and human lives, it also altered the natural cycle of forests in the US, which depended on occasional broad "clearing by fire" for certain flora and fauna to flourish. Efforts are currently underway to find a happy medium between the raging fires of yesteryear and none at all. As you can imagine, it's a tricky and controversial approach. We nearly lost one of our major national parks a couple of decades ago due to a natural burn that got out of hand. Ironically, even the "none at all" approach may have contributed to some forest fires by allowing a level of undergrowth that caused fires to spread more quickly and wider than they otherwise would have— an unintended "stockpile of fuel," if you will.

Given the above, I think it's much harder to judge what forest conditions in the US (or anywhere) would have been even a hundred years ago, much less when battles occurred among them.

Like Corpscommander said, latitude and regional environment will determine what grows there, and will be similar to what you see in the same kind of biome elsewhere. So a temperate broadleaf forest in North America will pretty much look like one in Europe or elsewhere, depending on the amount of forestry practiced, etc. You should check out a kid's book on habitats from your library, like these ones. They discuss the habitat/biome zones of the planet, along with drawings of what they look like, etc.

link

link

link

Doc here. Troiani has a very fine painting of Bushy Run, which I will find and link to. I assume it depicts the woods accurately?

There are two other factors to consider. Woodland areas were used as resources for fuel and grazing. It might be illegal to cut standing forests, but dead fall would be fair game for locals gathering firewood. Animals also keep the vegetation down. On our old family farm here in central Michigan. we had a nice large wood lot at the back of our property. The previous owners used those woods to graze cattle, and it was very open. It also got cleared of dead wood, as we burned wood to heat the house. Years later, the current owners have fenced off these same woods, and it has become overgrown and choked with dead fall.

Okay, what I had in mind is not Troiani's, but Griffing's Road to Bushy Run. A google image search will produce multiple images. It shows the forest to be gloomy and shaded (and very hilly) but not very much obstructing undergrowth. I assume that portrayal is typical?

I assume that portrayal is typical?

I think anything but. The discussion above seems to suggest that woods vary widely all over the world.

When I was a kid,I can remember alot of woods in NE Ohio similar to the painting that Doc is pointing out.Nowadays,not so much.Usually it was old growth that was located on a hillside,with gullies,and not practical for farming.

Where I live now,in East Central Ohio,ther's still lots of old growth on the hillsides,except for hill tops that have been cleared for strip mining.So the top of a hill may be a flat field,and the steep hill sides might have old growth on them

We don't have Skunks in ours..and you don't have Robin Hood.

We have Eastern Diamondbacks and Timber rattlers, way scarier than Robin Hood. Other than that the trees are mostly the same.

The discussion above seems to suggest that woods vary widely all over the world.

Well, yes. But in quite a reliable pattern, based on climate and politics. It's not random.

Few West European forests in inhabited areas are very dense. Certainly the French, Polish and British ones I have seen are relatively free of undergrowth. That is because for the last few hundred years at least they have been heavily managed.

However I believe in the eastern Baltic states that prior to the Soviet takeover the woods were cleared regularly, as peasants used them for firewood, fences etc. Then they all became state owned, so no-one could use anything from them. The result was they became overgrown and much more difficult to cross.

Pine tends to kill all undergrowth (as the needles are acidic?)

I live in the mountains – more or less – during the Calif gold rush, when population was 5000 miners (it is only about 350 now) – anyway, in the 1850s the surrounding mountains were literally emptied of trees. Now they are covered in them.

@ Iron Ivan Keith,

I guess then you'ld be suprized that Pennsylvania has about 10,000 acres of old growth much of it in northern Penn.

Animals native to a habitat would also make a difference to the density of undergrowth wouldn't they. Thinking about the impact Wild Boar can have don't they pretty much clear a lot of undergrowth in deciduous forest?