Why are forests in Siberia young? And the forest is mysterious How many trees are in the taiga

Adherents alternative history- very funny people, but the article is not about that. According to this pseudoscience, in the 19th century there was global flood, which destroyed all the forests in central (and maybe not only) Russia. What prompted these wonderful "researchers" to such an idea? Everything turns out to be very simple: all forests in modern Russia- young!

Trees (spruces and pines) in the forests - no older than 150 - 200 years

The photo shows a pine tree (Udmurtia) over 300 years old. As you remember from your last trip to the forest, the pines in it are not at all like this giant winding pine. By the way, the maximum age of pines and spruces reaches 400 years, you can read about this in reference books or textbooks - no one refutes this fact.

Any sane person with a developed outlook, of course, will reject the theory of some kind of miraculous flood that destroyed all the forests, but the fact that the forests are young really makes anyone think. There are really few relic forests in Russia, and even in Siberia, which the hand of a woodcutter has not yet reached, one cannot meet old trees. How so?! Where did the old firs and pines go? Maybe almost all the trees died out 150-200 years ago?

In addition to the authoritative opinion of the “friend of the forester”, who certainly knows better how old the trees are in his forest and exclamations: “even the foresters do not understand where the old trees in the forests have gone!”, lovers of alternative pseudo-history like to give one more argument in defense of their theory - photographs of Prokudin-Gorsky, a student of Mendeleev, who was the first in Russia to start taking color photographs. Prokudin-Gorsky, starting in 1909, traveled a lot around the country and took color photographs. Why are these photographs of alternative historians so attracted? There are very few trees in the pictures and no forests at all! For some reason, pictures and black-and-white photographs are not taken into account by these wonderful “researchers”, such a feature of this “science” is to reject objectionable facts. We will talk about Prokudin-Gorsky a little later, and now we will begin to explain where the old trees have gone in Russian European forests.

So where did all the old trees go? Exposing the myth!

If you turn to search engines for an answer, you will find heaps of informational garbage that has been bred by the labors of “alternatives”! All the links on the front pages about the flood that destroyed the forests, and not a single sensible page with answers! So - below I will finally reveal the secret of the disappearance of ancient forests.

Spruces and pines live up to 450 years, and this is a fact established real scientists. I will now ask you just one question that will destroy the entire forest alternative theory and will give the long-awaited answers. The maximum age of a person is about 120 years. So why on the street you will not meet a single person even a hundred years old? - yes, because they very little! If you look around, you will mostly see people from 20 to 50 years old - they are the most among the population. So why should trees live according to other laws? Where did the trees older than 300 years go? — died out! Yes Yes! Well, now let's turn to reliable sources and consider this issue in more detail.

Natural thinning of forest plantations

Trees, like all living things on Earth, fight each other for life. necessary resources: sunlight, moisture, the area in which they grow. But unlike people, they cannot move in search of new resources, no matter how trite it may sound! Quote from an authoritative (unlike any foresters) site:

Among foresters it is considered axiom that the forest normally develops to some certain age(not maximum); after reaching the age of ripeness, it begins fall apart, while losing not only the stock of wood, but also all its environment-forming and environmental properties.

In the forest, as the age and size of trees increase, their number per unit area decreases due to the death of weaker trees, that is, natural thinning or self-thinning of the forest occurs. This phenomenon should be considered as a process of self-regulation of a forest plantation, i.e., bringing the needs of the entire plantation into line with the available vital resources of the environment and how natural selection the fittest trees.

As individual trees grow in size, their need for crown space, food, and moisture increases. In this regard, the total need for the listed factors for the entire forest is also growing. I'll try to explain further plain language. When the trees in the forest are still young, they require much less resources to sustain life, so the number of trunks per unit area is greater. As the trees grow, they need more and more resources, and at one point the trees begin to "conflict" with each other and "fight" for living space. Natural selection comes into play - some trees begin to die already in early age. Self-regulation of the number of trees in a plantation creates conditions for normal growth and long-term existence of a forest plantation due to the death of individual, usually the weakest trees.

Overmature stands - "retirement" age of trees

When the trees reach the age of 100 - 140 years, the forest becomes ripe. At the same time, conifers stop growing in height, but can still grow in width. Overmature - a forest stand that has stopped growing in height, is destroyed by old age and disease (more than 140 years) - coniferous and hardwoods of seed origin. Generally: how older forest- the fewer trees in it.

It is not economically profitable to let the forest grow old - why let nature destroy such a valuable material for humans? Therefore, the overmature forest must be cut down in the first place! AT forestry all forests of the central part of Russia (and not only) are registered and their cutting down and planting with new trees is planned. Trees are simply not allowed to live up to 150 years and are cut down in "the prime of life."

If about 200 years ago all the forests were destroyed, then what were the sleepers for railways, buildings, ships, and stoves made of? My relatives live in Oryol region- a region not rich in forests, so they have practically no wooden buildings!

Fiction and painting

What about the mention of forests and logging in literature and paintings of the 18th and 19th centuries? Just ignore? Or are these masterpieces created by order of the secret world government in order to erase these events from people's memory? Seriously? Hell, this theory is so delusional that it’s hard to find words in amazement: global catastrophes, nuclear war - and no trace of these events, except for “young forests” and “ground-covered” first floors of houses ...

Prokudin-Gorsky photos of the forest

Let us return to Prokudin-Gorsky, so dearly loved by the alternatives. Thanks to their efforts, it's hard to find "normal" photos of the early 20th century forest on the Internet, but I found it to be a pleasant viewing.

View from Sekirnaya Gora to the Savvatevsky Skete, 1916

Border of Moscow and Smolensk provinces. Borodino, 1911

Rolling firewood for roasting ore, 1910

Mount Taganay, 1910

Conclusions and results

The main mistake of the inventors of alternative history lies in establishing an incorrect causal relationship. If now in modern forest not to meet trees older than 200 years, this does not mean at all that all forests were destroyed 200 years ago, it also does not mean that in 100 years our forests will be full of three hundred year old pine trees! Trees do not appear and die at the same time! In nature, almost everything obeys the normal statistical law of distribution: most of trees has average age, the oldest trees are a minority, and the older they are, the fewer of them. It is surprising that people are unwilling to understand the issue, look for answers, and instead run headlong to tell everyone that humanity is being deceived, because the trees are young! If you doubt something or don’t understand something, don’t sow ignorance, try to figure it out at least a little first. Write comments, I will be glad!

Often there are reports of a very young age of trees in our forests. The trees are said to be no older than 150 years. Various versions are given as the reason for this state of affairs. For my part, I can offer my version.

Let's remember that almost from the beginning of the 19th century (that is, almost 200 years ago), a purposeful resettlement of the country's human resources began to develop land from the western provinces to Siberia and to the east. This was due to the state necessity. Therefore, starting over. like a small stream, the stream of settlers soon turned into a deep river. The bulk of the migrants were peasant families who occupied free lands, cleared them and sowed the resulting fields. What Siberia was like before this migration of peoples and at its beginning, you can read in the written sources of that time, as well as look at paintings, drawings and maps. Not all settlers were able to immediately and finally settle in their chosen places. Simultaneously, there was an internal resettlement. They will begin to settle down in one place, then, by different reasons(for example, due to conflicts with old-timers), they find a new place and move there. Now, in order to understand what follows, let's turn to the materials of that time.

Ivan Ilyich Pushkarev "Historical, geographical and statistical description Russian Empire. Volume 1, book 4. Vologda province "1846 https://www.wdl.org/ru

In such an uncomplicated way, the peasants of that time "processed" new plots for sowing. You may notice to me that this took place in the Vologda province. Then we read excerpts from a book for Ukrainian settlers in Siberia, published in Kharkov in 1890:

As you can see, the method of developing and clearing the land is the same - burning and burning. Moreover, in this book it is especially noted that people who are accustomed to forests try to settle closer to the forests, and those for whom it is unusual to free up a place "under the sun" from forests, having toiled, move closer to the steppe. That is, forests were burned and eliminated by people with experience. Pay attention to the calculated rate of settlement in Siberia - 50 thousand people a year. If everyone has at least a hectare (he needs not only to sow for himself, but also hay land for livestock). that is 50 thousand hectares per year. We also need a forest for construction (which continues for more than one year), we need a forest for firewood ... So one should not be surprised at the speed of forest destruction. As a result, the old trees were "harvested", and the new ones have not yet "grown up". And now we marvel at giant stumps in old photographs and scan the skies for the area from which we flew.

Why in Russia all the trees are very young and in Siberia the average age of trees is only 150 years old, in America there are huge sequoias that are 2000 years old or more. Why such a huge difference? And why do we have coal in Russia and not in America?

stone forest

A pine tree lives 400 years and individual specimens in Siberia reach a little more and die, pine trees rarely survive longer, because now in Siberia it is very harsh conditions. But in Kemerovo, coal is mined in mines. Where did this Coal come from, which warms us, if not from pressed ancient huge trees, which for some reason mysteriously disappeared from us?

How was formed coal? This question will not be answered by any academician, let alone the Internet. Coal was formed only in a layer of 5-7 meters from old tree species, compressed and turned into coal - compressed forest. Some kind of plate fell from above and pressed it, heating them at the same time. What force lifted hundreds of tons of rocks into the air and covered these trees from above, if you need to go down into the mine quite deep? What is the origin of coal? Where did all our sequoias go, like in America? They obviously were! We apparently have compressed coal from these sequoias. And America has no coal, because there was more favorable climate and all the Sequoias survived.

Maybe it's because Tunguska meteorite? The Tunguska meteorite fell on June 30, 1908 in the area of the Podkamennaya Tunguska River, an event called the "Tunguska phenomenon" happened at 4 o'clock in the morning. But, if the Tunguska meteorite exploded during its passage over Europe, then its explosion would be capable of completely destroying a city like St. Petersburg. Thank God that this did not happen, but something happened, because there is no forest in St. Petersburg - everywhere young growth and the oldest trees were clearly planted intentionally near Peter and Paul Fortress- 300-year-old oak and linden remained there
and Oranienbaum, ancient trees remain, but all the trees around are relatively young. No wonder they say that there was some unthinkable cataclysm in Nature in 1812-1814, and Napoleon lost to the Russians, because he froze in Russia.

The tree-ring method reflects the consequences of all major volcanic eruptions extremely poorly - the eruption of a tropical volcano in the territory of modern Mexico or Ecuador in 1258, the underwater volcano Kuwae in the vicinity of the Pacific islands of Vanuatu in 1458, the mysterious eruption of 1809 and the explosion of the Tambora volcano on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa in 1815.

What kind of cold was it then? In 1812, when Napoleon went to Russia, he was stopped by the Russian Frost and Hitler was also stopped by the Russian frost. Just Santa Claus - Russian bodyguard. But I have a question: Where does this frost come from at the right time, in the right place, and where did the permafrost come from in Siberia, when it used to be warm in Russia, Russia is the homeland of elephants?

Everyone remembers the Palms in Astrakhan Strays, Jan Jansen:

17th century engraving from a book by Jan Streis. The excesses of the Cossacks of Stepan Razin in the captured Astrakhan.

Orange trees grew in St. Petersburg in Oranienbaum Lomonosov near St. Petersburg - this is the Orange City - On all the ancient engravings of the city - rows of orange trees, moreover, right in the ground, and not in the greenhouse.

Oranienbaum. Engraving by A.I. Rostovtsev, 1716

Oranienbaum. Engraving by A.I. Rostovtsev, 1716. Sailboats went straight to the palace, which already stood in 1716. Oraniybaum where at open ground oranges grew before. #Peter #Lomonosov

Engraving. Grand Palace Oranienbaum. Middle of the 18th century.

Trees are very sensitive to the slightest changes in climatic conditions - an increase or decrease in temperature, energy solar radiation and other factors. All these events are reflected in the shape and thickness of annual rings - layers of wood in the trunk, which is formed during the growing season. The dark rings are believed to correspond adverse conditions environment, and light - favorable. and now, when trees are cut down, our entire core is completely dark - these were not favorable years for the growth of trees.

Michael Mann (Michael Mann) from the University of Pennsylvania at State College (USA) and his colleagues checked how accurately annual rings reflect the short-term temperature drop that occurs after the strongest tropical volcanic eruptions.

To do this, Mann and his colleagues compared graphs of seasonal temperature fluctuations from 1200 to the present, which were obtained using a "conventional" climate model and a technique that included analysis of tree growth rings. The traditional model follows changes in solar radiation intensity and fluctuations in the planet's energy balance, which is reflected in an increase or decrease in average temperatures.

The second method used, as input data, sections of trunks obtained in 60 high-mountain forest areas on the so-called "tree line" - maximum height on which ordinary trees can grow. Local climatic conditions only minimally meet the needs woody vegetation, and abnormally high or low average annual temperatures well reflected in the rings.

Because of this, chronological errors can accumulate in slices as you move from relatively modern rings to more ancient ones.

And you know. What I think is easy in Russia because of the anomalous low temperatures our forest just didn't grow. And the dark cores of the trees are proof of this. Glacial period affected our trees.

The truth is somewhere near.

Some time ago, I wondered why there are no thousand-year-old sorcerer oaks in our forests, the images of which so vividly emerge from our genetic memory when we read the ones that have come down to us. folk tales. Where are those dense forests that we all imagine so well? Let us recall the lines of V.S. Vysotsky, and these same thickets immediately appear before your eyes:

In reserved and dense scary Murom forests
Any evil spirits wanders in a cloud and sows fear in passers-by,
Howling howling that your dead,
If there are nightingales there, then robbers.
Scary, creepy!

In the enchanted swamps there kikimors live,
Tickle to hiccups and dragged to the bottom.
Whether you are on foot, whether you are on horseback, they grab
And the goblin so roam the forest.
Scary, creepy!

And a peasant, a merchant and a warrior fell into a dense forest,
Who for what: who with a drink, and who foolishly climbed into the thicket.
For a reason they disappeared, for no reason,
Only all of them were seen, as if they had disappeared.
Scary, creepy!

Something similar appears in the well-known song about hares:

In the dark blue forest, where aspens tremble,
Where the leaves fall from the sorcerer oaks
Hares mowed grass in the clearing at midnight
And at the same time they sang strange words:

We have a business - in the most terrible hour we mow the magic tryn-grass "

And the sorcerer oaks whisper something in the fog,
At the filthy swamps, someone's shadows rise,
Hares mow grass, tryn-grass in a clearing
And out of fear, they sing a song faster and faster:

“But we don’t care, but we don’t care, even if we are afraid of the wolf and the owl,
We have a business - in the most terrible hour we mow the magic tryn-grass "

In general, I plunged into this topic, and it turned out that I was not the only one who asked this question. I discovered many interesting theories, ranging from continental floods to nuclear war 1812 unleashed by alien invaders. In general, I had a lot of fun))) And meanwhile, a fact is a fact - in the first old photos of the construction of railways and other objects in the vastness of Russia, there are no old forests! There is a young forest, which is much younger than that what we see around today. Even the photo from the site of the "Tunguska meteorite" does not impress with the thickness of the trunks. There are thin as matches trunks of approximately the same thickness. No oak witches for you. At the same time, in some European countries and America with oaks and other trees (for example, sequoias) everything is in order ...

The official version claims that the forests do not live up to their mature age due to periodic fires that occur here and there throughout Siberia. But it is still strange that throughout Russia there was no photograph with a really dense forest, with a thousand-year-old oak forest (and oaks live for 1500 years). In addition, from the photographs one gets the feeling that the forests are all about the same age, which, in theory, should not be in the case of periodic relatively local fires.

Despite my suspicions, I admit that the age of the already grown forest is difficult to determine from photographs. We distinguish only the forest from the young growth, and when it is already over 40 years old, then without a specific measurement of the diameters of the trunks, the fig knows how old it is, 50, 80 or 100. And from here we can assume that any forest in Siberia burns more often than once every 150-200 years. But in the west of the Moscow region, there have been no large forest fires for a long time.

Consider the forest near my dacha. He looks to be less than 100 years old. Let's see what was here in the 1770s. Let's open a fragment of the survey map of the Zvenigorod district of the Moscow region. I marked the location of our dachas with a blue square:

Stripes are arable land. It is noteworthy that to the right of the dachas we see a forest, but below - arable land. Where the forest now grows, there was arable land, and the forest is indicated on the site of the current field, which is located on our side of Moscow. It is interesting that even the Pokrovka River, which now begins in the field near the White House and goes through the forest, on this map begins in the forest, and then goes among the arable land. Let's trace the state of this area on other maps.

Another survey map from the same period. If the dotted line marks the boundaries of the forest, then, surprisingly, the forest is present on it in almost the same configuration as now.

Our ravine with a forked tongue is not visible here. It looks like the wrong piece of the map is inserted in this place. Above you can see a similar forked ravine, but this is not our ravine, but the one located behind the SNT "Spring". I determined the location of our dachas by superimposing the previous map on this one - all other objects more or less coincided, which means that the location of the current location of the dachas was determined correctly.

The village of Pokrovskoye on these two maps is located very close to our ravine. Maps at that time were compiled by eye, so such strong distortions are normal. Based on this, I can assume that the arable land on the previous map is not located where we now have a forest, but near the village of Pokrovskoye, but due to strong distortions, it turned out that they almost stuck to our ravine. In addition, the forest on the first map to the right of the ravine is shown rather conditionally, so it is possible that the distance to it was greater, and the field could have been deployed incorrectly. In this sense, the second map seems to me more accurate. There, the boundaries of the forest are clearly marked, just like the Pokrovka River.

Thus, based on the second map, we can conclude that in the 1770s the forest grew approximately in the same place as now. (plus it also grew in the area where the White House now stands). That is, 250 years ago there was a forest here too. But where, then, are the 250-year-old trees? There is not.

Let's take a look at the latest maps. Maybe the forest was cut down there, and this was somehow reflected in them?

Schubert's map based on surveys that took place in 1838-1839. most accurate and detailed map this area for all time, reprinted with infrastructural additions for almost the next century. The so-called "odnoverstka", that is, 1 verst in 1 inch (1 cm = 420 m). Here I've zoomed in 2 times for convenience:

The map was made scientific methods, so there is practically no distortion. We see the same picture that we saw on the survey maps created 50-70 years earlier. That is, all this time the forest remained in its place.

Another map built according to the shooting that took place a little later, in 1852-1853:

Although this is a more recent map, it is less detailed. There is no Davydkovo-Burtsevo road on it. But the relief is better worked out. For 10 new years, nothing happened to the forest either.

Wow! We see our forest clearing! That is, immediately after the revolution, it already existed! Again the forest is in place, has not disappeared anywhere. It has been standing for 150 years!

Let's continue monitoring. During the Great Patriotic War A German spy plane took aerial photography of our area in 1942, on which we can see not only the presence of the forest, but also its condition:

What do we see? Kievskoe highway appeared, but the forest almost exactly matches what we saw on the maps earlier. However, we see huge clearing on the right, which cuts like a triangle into the forest from the side of the Kiev highway, as well as completely bald meadow a little to the left. We can also see our forest clearing, which connects the nose of the white field with a bald clearing near the highway. I note that if you do not know that there was a felling in that place, it would be rather difficult to identify it on the spot today, although there is an elusive change in the nature of the forest there.

Photo from a 1966 American spy satellite. 25 years have passed, and the felling is almost invisible:

But the light forest on the right at the end of the field is now completely cut down, and turned into a new field, and the edge of our forest from the side of the field is slightly cut.

A 1972 snapshot, also from an American spy satellite:

There are no changes with the forest, but it is clear that instead of our ravine, a pond has appeared, blocked by a dam, and dirt roads have become more rutted.

The borders of the forest are the same as in the 1972 photo. The forest is already 200 years old, but there are still no old trees in it! By the way, the above map in the 80s in paper form hung on my wall. It gave me great pleasure to see our garden plots on it!

Let's take a look at Google Satellite Imagery last period. Early Spring 2006:

Compared to 1966-1972, the forest has not changed much due to the exclusion of the clearing of the oil pipeline, laid in 1974 (visible especially well in the forest south of the dachas). This image is also notable for the fact that we can clearly see an evergreen pine piece of forest in it (in the right upper corner forest area). In the summer picture of the same year, it is no longer so noticeable:

It is interesting to see a winter snapshot from February 2009. The only winter image of our dachas in the history of Google cartography:

And now, attention! A snapshot from 2012, the forest is 240 years old and still in good shape:

Here's a picture from 2013! Part of the forest has already been cut down! The felling took place in winter by huge tracked vehicles, their traces are visible:

At the same time, the active phase of the expansion of Vnukovo Airport began (seen on the right).

And finally, a modern snapshot of 2017 (though already Yandex). The clearing is overgrown with shrubs, except for the plateau piled on the right:

Thus, despite such attractive theories about being erased from our memory by a cataclysm for some reason, I can assume that our forest was nevertheless gradually cut down periodically, and then grew again. The same can be assumed about the entire Moscow region. Behind recent centuries forests around the cities were actively cut down, grew again and were cut down again. It is reasonable to assume that the Siberian forests were also cut down, but already on a large-scale industrial scale. In addition, they periodically burned. In previous centuries, when they were not extinguished, they could burn for a very long time until a downpour extinguished them, which means it becomes clear why they are all so young.

But why don't forests burn down on the American continent? Perhaps there is a different climate, more intense rains, which immediately extinguish a tree set on fire by lightning?

But then the question is, why do we so easily imagine these thousand-year-old oak forests, as if we have a memory of them somewhere deep in the subconscious? Why are dense forests so often described in our fairy tales? So, they were still there several centuries ago? Maybe. After all, there were few people, there was no large-scale industrial felling yet, and fires from lightning are more prone to eastern regions Russia with a more pronounced continental climate. Well, it remains only to regret that those fabulous times have already passed ...

By the way, if you are prone to conspiracy theories, read this man, very interesting:

In Russia, the Council for the Conservation natural heritage nation in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the program "Trees - Monuments of Wildlife" was opened.

Enthusiasts all over the country are looking for trees 200 years old and older with fire during the day.

Two hundred years old trees are unique! So far, about 200 pieces of all breeds and varieties have been found throughout the country. Moreover, most of the trees found have nothing to do with the forest, like this 360-year-old pine. This is determined not only by its modern proud loneliness, but also by the shape of the crown.

Thanks to this program, we are able to fairly objectively assess the age of our forests.

Here are two examples of applications from the Kurgan region.

But in the Kurgan region, perhaps, more favorable conditions for pines - the pine from the Ozerninsky forest, which was discussed above, has a trunk thickness of 110 centimeters and an age of only 189 years. I also found several freshly cut stumps, also about 70 cm in diameter, and counted 130 annual rings. Those. the pines from which the forest began are about 130-150 years old.

If things continue to be the same as they have been for the last 150 years - the forests will grow and gain strength - then it is not difficult to predict how the children from these photographs will see this forest in 50-60 years, when they bring their grandchildren to these, for example, pine trees (fragment photograph placed above - pines by the lake).

You understand: pine trees at 200 years old will cease to be a rarity, in the Kurgan region alone there will be an unmeasurable number of them, pine trees over 150 years old, grown among pine forests, with a trunk as smooth as a telegraph pole without knots, will grow everywhere, but now there are none at all, that is, no at all.

Of the entire mass of monument pines, I found only one that grew in the forest, in the Khanty-Mansiysk district:

Given the harsh climate of those places (equated to areas Far North), with a trunk thickness of 66 cm, it is fair to consider this tree much older than 200 years. At the same time, the applicants noted that this pine is a rarity for local forests. And in the local forests, with an area of at least 54 thousand hectares, there is nothing like this! There are forests, but the forest in which this pine was born has disappeared somewhere - after all, it has grown and stretched among the pines that were even older. But they are not.

And this is what will prevent those pines that grow, at least in the Kurgan forests, from continuing their lives - pines live and for 400 years, as we have seen, our conditions for them are ideal. Pine trees are very resistant to diseases, and with age, resistance only increases, fires for pine trees are not terrible - there is nothing to burn down there, ground fires of pine trees are easily tolerated, and riding ones, after all, are very rare. And, again, adult pines are more resistant to fires, so fires destroy, first of all, young growth.

Anyone, after the above, will argue with the statement that we did not have forests 150 years ago at all? There was a desert, like the Sahara - bare sand:

This is a fire pit. What we see: the forest stands on bare sand, covered only with needles with cones and a thin layer of humus - just a few centimeters. All pine forests in our country, and, as far as I know, in the Tyumen region, stand on such bare sand. These are hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest, if not millions - if this is so, then the Sahara is resting! And all this was literally a hundred and fifty years ago!

The sand is blindingly white, with no impurities at all!

And it seems that you can meet such sands not only in the West Siberian Lowland. For example, there is something similar in Transbaikalia - there is a small area, only five by ten kilometers, which is still "undeveloped" taiga, and the locals consider it a "Miracle of Nature".

And he was given the status of a geological reserve. We have this "miracle" - well, heaps, only this wood, in which we had an excursion, has dimensions of 50 by 60 kilometers, and no one sees any miracles and does not organize reserves - as if it should be so ...

By the way, the fact that Transbaikalia was a continuous desert in the 19th century was documented by photographers of that time, I already laid out what those places looked like before the construction of the Circum-Baikal railway. Here, for example:

A similar picture can be seen in other Siberian places, for example, a view in the "deaf taiga" on the construction of the road to Tomsk:

All of the above convincingly proves that about 150-200 years ago there were practically no forests in Russia. The question arises: were there forests in Russia before. Were! It's just that for one reason or another they were buried by the "cultural layer", like the first floors of the St. Petersburg Hermitage, the first floors in many Russian cities.

I have repeatedly written about this very "cultural layer" here, but I will not be able to resist once again publishing a photo that has recently spread around the Internet:

For rent, in Kazan "cultural layer" from the first floor, listed long years"basement" was stupidly removed by a bulldozer, without resorting to the services of archaeologists.

But bog oak, and even more so, is mined without notifying any "scientists" - "historians" and other archaeologists. Yes, such a business still exists - the extraction of fossil oak.