hans muster wrote:
John Polk wrote:The "European Honey Bee" was brought to North America in the early 1600's.
They have been in the U.S. long before tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, zucchini, potatoes, cantaloupes, corn, watermelons, okra (and hundreds of other fruits/vegetables). If he wants to be an ass about the bees not being native, give him Hell about his selection of vegetables.
Corn was in the US much earlier than the Europeans, originating from Latin America.
It was documented Canada in the year 400-600, and was in New York 500 years earlier.
Crawford et al. 2006 wrote a paper about the topic.
https://tinyurl.com/3zbfhvnt
I find it really interesting how the different crop were domesticated and evolved in different regions. Corn, after reaching Europe post-Columbuss, even lead to diseases as the nixtamalization process was unknown.
Roberto pokachinni wrote:Hi Ben.
I think that my discussion on the topic was speaking of growth rings or growth rates, regardless of tree species, or forest systems, or management systems, that growth rings do not necessarily get smaller as a tree gets older. This may be true of Redwoods, once they get to an extreme old age, but I'm speaking generally, of trees. If a tree has growth rings that are countable, then the width of those rings directly correlate to how good of a season it had in terms of it's primary needs: sun, nutrients, moisture, and in terms of how these needs are effected by outside influence. Anything that deprives a tree of any of these will hinder it's growth and thus create smaller growth rings, and any factor that increases these needed inputs will create greater growth, and this is correlated to larger growth rings. A pair of tree rings is produced annualy. The thinner one is produced during it's slower growing or in extreme cold climates, dormant period, whereas the fatter ring is produced during the intense growing season that peaks at the summer solstice. Most of the forests that I have seen logged, where I planted trees (in the North Coast Temperate Rainforest), were old growth, or ancient (meaning, that unlike old growth that might have a catastrophic fire reset the majority of the system every 350-500 years, an ancient forest-usually as smaller groves within an old growth system- is so wet that even a lightning strike fire in the heart of summer is unlikely to burn more than that one tree, or perhaps it's closest neighbor, and these forests are dominated by extremely old trees 500-2000+) at the time of the clearcut. I've seen time and again that the pattern of the rings are not uniform, that they vary significantly from year to year in some areas but can have some uniform patterns over the span of decades, and I have been led to believe that this is as a result of what the tree experienced in any given year. Sometimes there is uniformity in it's pattern, which is a result of steady growth (this is more likely in an even aged stand following a catastrophic event, but happens in all types of forest and correlates with a period (years, decades... ) of steady relatively even growth), but generally there will be some variations in the width of the rings due to multi aged effect of healthy old growth systems, and the effect of one tree on the next in addition to the correlations between climatic and external influences, such as drought, el nina type extreme wetness, damaging scars from impacts, fires, et cetera. This is not simply to do with second growth forests, but is true (to my knowledge) across the board (pun intended). I've seen way too many huge old growth sawn stumps to consider your initial statement about growth rings as valid”However, Robert, while of course your points about tree growth rates are useful in selective logging of second growth to maximize regrowth,
Robert, did you do the math of the relative biomass of the skinnier outer rings going around a much larger circle, and up a taller tree? Tree rings stack like traffic cones. The thick rings in the middle are aroun a small circle and short tree. I think this is hard for us to grasp just looking at the rings, like many aspects of older forests’ exponential growth. Either way, you do not have to believe me, you can look it up (Noss, 1998: Redwood Ecology—among many other academic sources. A large redwood can put on an equivalent amount of wood to a 4” thick, 80ft tall trunk. I do not see any number of young trees in the same footprint doing that. With the exception of their ability to grow from reiterations, I think you are correct, redwoods are just like any other conifer, only more-so. They all grow exponentially faster (on average) over time until within about 50yrs
of their maximum life expectancy.
Or perhaps you are taking the words “grow more wood every year” literally, when I meant it has that trend with obvious exceptions for years with unfavorable growth conditions, which often kill younger trees but not older ones.
Moreover, trees are generally not water positive for their watershed unti over 20yrs old, and become exponentially more beneficial thereafter with more surface area to slow, spread, and store water.
Apparently I am not smart enough to figure out the quote function on my phone after nearly a decade on permies, but I do know trees, and would bet all of my appendages that I am correct on the above counterpoints. A large, old tree is exponentially more valuable than any number of younger trees in the same footprint.
Alina Green wrote:This guy appears to have tested the nutrients NPK in "weed tea" and also mentions a paper on similar liquid fertilizer made in Zimbabwe from plants. (you can find the paper by searching online)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB7cxfzPFQc