Forest disturbances and establishment are cool in and of themselves, but the balance between the two is also interesting. If, over the long haul, disturbances outpace establishment, we might expect less forest. If there's more establishment than disturbances, the forest would be expanding. It's complex, of course, because you can only compare rates across areas that are really similar, and long time periods are required, since forest disturbances are often episodic. 10 years isn't a lot of time. But there are some interesting differences in southeast Alaska. There's a lot more forest loss than gain on southerly slopes, especially in the north, and in areas of glacial recession (that one is fairly obvious). Still exploring the trends, but its an interesting map to look at and explore.