Post #763328

2026-03-25 03:01 UTC

Hey, #ecologist fediverse! I have a question about the biome(s) of Northeast US and Eastern Canada. I grew up in New England, but when I was 14 I moved to California and I had a biology teacher who said something interesting in passing about the predominant biome of New England: that unlike the forested parts of England and Western Europe, pretty much all the nutrients in our mixed coniferous/deciduous forests were actually in the trees and other botanical growth. As opposed to the soil. And this is one of the reasons that early white colonists struggled mightily with agriculture here. They would clear the trees and underbrush, and assume that the soil that grew them so tall would also do likewise to their wheat and vegetables. Which it did not. Can any of you confirm or deny this? I would love a pointer to a paper that makes this contention or explains it – or debunks it.

Replies (7)

@doctormo@floss.social 2026-03-25 05:09

@siderea@universeodon.com This smells like an old wives tale. I've looked at a number of sources, and I can't find any historical writing about the trees being the primary store of nutrition. What I can find is: Soils are poor quality because of glaciation, cash crops couldn't be gown only subsistence crops. This pushed people into timber industries and changed the trajectory of New England from agriculture towards industry unlike southern colonies. So the trees got used, not just removed for no reason.

Open ##1157035
@deborahh@cosocial.ca 2026-03-25 03:16

@siderea @mayintoronto not a scientist, but I'll mention that the glaciation of the Canadian Shield scraped away so much topsoil, down to bare rock in some places ... I wonder if that's why?

Open ##1720534
@seachanged@mastodon.social 2026-03-25 03:24

@siderea Sounds like a podzol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podzol

Open ##1720546
@johnlehet@mas.to 2026-03-25 10:21

@siderea The part of Vermont I live in was very clear of trees while small farming was profitable. 50 years ago or so, farming was less profitable, and land was not mowed and grazed as much. Trees grew up like crazy. My bit of land was mostly clear 50 years ago, now just the part I mow. The trees grow fast. If there were no nutrients without the trees, how did the trees all do that, appear in the pastured soil?

Open ##1720551
@dasgrueneblatt@wien.rocks 2026-03-25 15:03

@siderea Do you have any details on what "the nutrients were in the trees and other botanical growth as opposed to in the soil" is supposed to mean from a biological/ecological perspective? Do the dead plants decompose? How do the nutrients get into the next generation of plants?

Open ##1720555
@clew@ecoevo.social 2026-03-25 15:41

I have studied soil science, though not in New England. Away from good internet right now but 3 pointers: Pretty sure much of New England is Spodosols, especially as you go north. So Maine would have soils like Norway, where, oh, Maryland has soils like more of England. “Harvard Forest” has had so much research done on it. So much! Trees can grow big slowly, so they *can* be fed by “trickles”: winter breakdown of rock, fungal breakdown of rock, or the global fall of Sahara dust. @siderea

Open ##1720556
@audrinabell@mstdn.social 2026-03-25 18:35

@siderea have you tried contacting any of the UMass Amherst environmental/ agriculture schools?

Open ##1720558