Re: [Texascavers] Water and invasive natives

2010-03-14 Thread Nancy Weaver
generally enjoy and often agree with sleazal's posts, AND  like most 
humans in this last one he presupposes that we humans somehow 'know' 
what natural is.  as tho nature herself hasnt got a clue how to 
revegetate land and habitats destroyed by human previous 'knowing'. 
If nature sees fit to fill a niche with junipers which by the by, 
provide food and habitat for most of the small mammals and birds of 
central texas, it would be somewhat presumptuous of me to naysay it.


of course presumption is our middle name . . .

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com



[Texascavers] Water and invasive natives

2010-03-13 Thread BMorgan994
Rain either falls or doesn't on the just and unjust alike. That alone  
determines how much water there is. Nevertheless, local summer rainfall  
depends 
on atmospheric humidity generated in great measure by transpiration from  
trees and other forms of vegetation, trees are just better at it. That is why 
 deforestation leads to drought. 
 
What is most important is that the vegetative cover be composed of species  
that coevolved with the suite of animal species that are indigenous to the 
area,  that way biodiversity is maximized and energy can be most effectively 
cycled  through the ecosystem. Texas used to be mostly fire controlled 
savanna with  large numbers of grazers and browsers, none of which, including 
cows, are  fond of eating juniper.
 
People are finally getting wise to the dire effects of exotic invasive  
species, but many make the mistake of thinking that just because a given 
species  is indigenous that means it is OK, but nothing could be further from 
the 
truth.  Anthropogenic disturbance such as too many hooved locusts and fire 
supression  can easily throw native plant species out of whack. 
 
North Florida used to be similar to Texas in many respects, fire controlled 
 pine oak savanna with many of the same species such as diamondbacks and  
junipers. The main difference is that in my area we generally have sand 
covering  the carbonate rocks so the place isn't as juniper friendly as Texas. 
Sandy soils  are generally acidic, so when we chop down our forests and then 
plow what little  soil there originally was gets totally destroyed. Pioneers 
got in a  few years of crops, after which a few years of watermelons, but 
after that not a  damned thing, so they gave up and ran range cattle which 
destroyed whatever was  left. Most areas were subsequently turned into planted 
pine, the ultimate  ecological insult, but those farms that were simply 
abandoned while awaiting  development reverted to "nature". 
 
The problem is that what came back was in no way natural. The soil was  
gone, the sand acidic, and fire was excluded by the zillions of roads, so  
instead of a fire controlled savanna with widely spaced pines and live oaks 
what 
 we got was an uncontrollable regrowth of damnable laurel and water oaks, 
total  trash trees that formed biologically destitute monocultures. 
 
Nothing, and I do mean nothing, will grow beneath a thicket of laurel oaks. 
 They exhibit allelopathy and kill everything that comes near them. In 
addition  to impoverishing the ecosystem they grow very fast and tall so they 
threaten to  overtop and shade out the live oaks. Unlike live oaks the damned 
things coppice  when cut, so cutting without stump treatment with herbicide 
only encourages  them. Needless to say we long ago killed off most predators 
so there are  zillions of squirrels to spread the acorns far and wide. Fire 
ants, Bt sprays,  and various unknown insect plagues have killed off all 
the pollinating insects  so now there are no flowers in Florida, and thus no 
herbaceous ground cover  plants to compete with seedling laurel oaks. 
 
Every knowledgeable naturalist in north Florida passionately hates laurel  
oaks, but few are willing to go to the trouble of controlling them. I was 
about  in despair until I notice something interesting. Stress due to 
alternate  flooding and drought made the laurel oaks susceptible to Hypoxylon, 
a 
common  opportunistic fungus that forms blueish patches on the sides of the 
trunks,  after which over a period of years they would decline and eventually 
die. The  live oaks were simply outliving them. 
 
Nevertheless I thirst for the sap of laural oaks. Some I directly cut and  
stack for firewood, being sure to poison the stumps. Some I girdle which  
causes them to slowly die without much coppicing, great for woodpeckers and  
such. Others I chop in several place with a machete then squirt herbicide  
into the cut. That causes weakness leading to more Hypoxolon. If there is a  
mature laurel oak not threatening any live oaks I leave it alone. They only 
live  about 70 years, by which time a live oak is merely a teenager, so in 
the  end the live oaks win. 
 
It is all a lot of work but well worth it. So are your efforts to combat  
juniper and thus bring back a functioning ecosystem, so fire up those chain 
saws  boys, all you need is gasoline, roundup, and beer!
 
Sleazel