[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/out/ - Outdoors


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: IMG_20190514_184733.jpg (458 KB, 2448x3264)
458 KB
458 KB JPG
What tree is this? Western KY near river.
>>
File: IMG_20190514_184716.jpg (1.85 MB, 2448x3264)
1.85 MB
1.85 MB JPG
>>1515517
I didn't realize the pics of the trunk we're this bad until I already left.
>>
Not a a burger but it looks like a willow.
>>
>>1515517
>>1515518
looks like willow to me, though it's generally not found in my area
>>
>>1515522
I figured it out. It's a salix fragilis or crack Willow. It's an invasive species here and most the world.
>>
>>1515527
Please don't use the term "invasive species". Thank you.
>>
>>1515534
Why? It literally is.
>>
>>1515547
No, it's a term made up by boomers to describe species they don't like.
>>
File: 1556490485222 (1).png (438 KB, 561x381)
438 KB
438 KB PNG
>>1515548
Lmao I really hope you're joking.
>>
>>1515553
No, you're stupid if you believe otherwise.
>>
>>1515554
Lmao, and vaccines cause autism right?
>>
>>1515570
No. Are you retarded?
Everyone knows it's 4channel that causes autism.
>>
>>1515579
4chan was created by the government in order to track individuals that got autism from vaccines. Before the internet was invented the government created the term "invasive species" as another means of tracking autistic people.
>>
>>1515583
My point is that it's fucking moronic to deem species as "invasive". If a species gets a foothold in a place it didn't have one before, that's just the natural way of things.
>>
>>1515586
Put down the joint hippie.
>>
>>1515592
>wants humanity to stop fucking with the natural order unnecessarily
>hippie
Well, at least I'm not a fucking boomer piece of shit, I guess.
>>
>>1515586
Buuuuuuulllllllshit.
They call invasive species invasive because they are native to environments that are often harsher than where they become invasive. They outcompete native species and choke up entire landscapes creating dangerous monocultures. Don't try to sound smart and speak about things you don't understand.
>t. Masters in forest management
>>
>>1515597
>t. unable to look at the bigger picture
>>
>>1515601
The bigger picture of what? How dangerous monocultures are to a healthy and biodeverse ecological system? Take your own advice.
>>
>>1515595
Kek 5/10 thanks for the laugh bud.
>>
>>1515603
That's how it was for literally billions of years before humans came along. That's how evolution works.
>>
>>1515601
You are working with an old fashioned view of natural selection. It's common for people to believe that if a species can exist in an area it's simply because it is filling a niche that was unfilled by other species. In reality, species that have been deemed "invasive" aren't filling a niche, they are just replacing native species. For some species, just because it is non-native does not mean it is invasive. A good example would be Norway Spruce. In parts of Canada and the Northeast US, Norway Spruce is considered invasive but in the upper Midwest it is generally not considered a problem. If you want to argue whether a species being deemed "invasive" is highly subjective, you would be in agreement with all ecologists/botanists/foresters etc. The reason a species like Norway Spruce can be invasive in one area but not in another is because the species could have an impact on native plants, wildlife, disturbance regime or have an impact on things like microclimate, erosion or nutrient availability.

Lets look at Phragmites, a prevalent invasive species all across the US. It was introduced from Europe and grows in wetlands all across the United States. It has established it self in almost all the wetland ecosystems across the US including saltwater marshes in Utah. The reason it out competes local species is because humans have altered disturbance regimes that were crucial for certain native species and it grows through rhizomes. It also grows to be as tall as a one story house and completely shades out all other plants. Even if you don't care about whether native plants remain available, most people will care about all the ecological effects Phragmites has in all areas. First, it is awful wildlife habitat. The Redwing Blackbird is common throughout the US but only in wetlands with sturdy natives like cattails because they can't perch on Phragmites and struggle to find food.
>>
>>1515615
>>1515612
Phragmites continued

Ducks require aquatic invertebrates during the brooding period in the summer. Their food sources will change throughout the year (they mainly eat forage from agriculture in the fall for the carbs needed during migration) but when they are raising young they will feed almost exclusively on aquatic invertebrates for protein. Phragmites is one of the worst plants for aquatic invertebrate habitat. In wetlands dominated by Phragmites, ducks might not even visit these wetlands because food source is poor and habitat is poor. Phragmites also impacts riparian areas that affect trout spawning. Phragmites grows so tall and dense that it completely destroys the structure of riparian ecosystems. Since there is no low/ground herbaceous layer to prevent erosion, the rivers become turbid and polluted. The combination of decreased water quality and decreased aquatic invertebrates (food source for fish as well), highly productive trout streams have been destroyed by Phragmites. If you like fishing, I can promise you that you won't like it if you have to walk through or stand among Phragmites because the only bugs you'll find in or around Phragmites is mosquitoes.
>>
>>1515612
Plants did not travel around the planets in clay pots carried by stupid humans for a billion years. Look at the Giant Hogweed, a monstrously poisonous plant that has no business being as widespread in Europe as it is (no business being there at all in fact), and tell me that shit isn't invasive.
>>
File: garlicmustard.jpg (239 KB, 1200x800)
239 KB
239 KB JPG
It's a shame when you pay enough attention to plants. You'll start to realize the extent of the spread of introduced species, each dominating various ecosystems in their own way.
>>
>>1515672
This is what ignorant people don't understand about the dangers of invasives. They go into the forest and can't tell one tree or plant from another so they have no idea how bad it can actually be. All they see is green.
>>
There are pros and cons to most things. Kill all humans because we are not only the number invasive, we also cause most other ones. I happen to like useful creatures. Some who screech "invasive!" Or "weed!" Are tards while others who screech such are legit.

>While typically considered a noxious weed, in Louisiana the reed beds are considered critical to the stability of the shorelines of wetland areas and waterways of the Mississippi Delta, and the die-off of reed beds is believed to accelerate coastal erosion.[12]
>>
>>1515700
Are you drunk? It was hard making sense of any of that.
>>
>Phragmites australis is one of the main wetland plant species used for phytoremediation water treatment.

>Waste water from lavatories and greywater from kitchens is routed to an underground septic tank-like compartment where the solid waste is allowed to settle out. The water then trickles through a constructed wetland or artificial reed bed, where bioremediation bacterial action on the surface of roots and leaf litter removes some of the nutrients in biotransformation. The water is then suitable for irrigation, groundwater recharge, or release to natural watercourses.

>Numerous parts of Phragmites can be prepared for consumption. For example, the young stems "while still green and fleshy, can be dried and pounded into a fine powder, which when moistened is roasted [sic] like marshmallows." Also, the wheat-like seeds on the apex of the stems "can be ground into flour or made into gruel." Rootstocks are used similarly.[18]

And many more uses. God forbid some bird figure out how to survive in those reeds cause then it might out thrive some asshole blue jay.
>>
>>1515708
Phone posting. Don't judge me til u forced to do it yourself. Be happy I did not use the speech to txt option.

Because text to speech does not always work how long would wish it but sometimes it doesn't back to work say what I'm talkin about here maybe the fault is mine maybe I just can't speak with enough English
>>
>>1515731
Im phone posting too. Androids spell check has gone to shit for some reason. I have to open a new tab and Google a word all the time because I get 1 vowel wrong and my phone thinks it's fucking alien speak.
>>
>>1515719
>asshole blue jay
they truly are the assholes of birds
>>
Crack Willow sounds like a pretty cool tree why is it considered an invasive? I just get sick of some people calling every single good plant invasive due to the complexities of the world and how it is always in a state of both change and tradition. Even in human personality we can see that some favor tradition and others favor the alien or unknown. in politics the traditionalist are conservatives And the more open people are called liberals.

Sorry for the drunken post by the way I guess if I try harder then phone posting can be easier once I speak clearly into the phone.

>The plant is commonly called crack willow or brittle willow because it is highly susceptible to wind, ice and snow damage.[3] The name also derives from the twigs which break off very easily and cleanly at the base with an audible crack. Broken twigs and branches can take root readily, enabling the species to colonise new areas as broken twigs fall into waterways and can be carried some distance downstream. It is particularly adept at colonising new riverside sandbanks formed after floods. It also spreads by root suckers, expanding into pure 'groves'.[3]
>>
>>1515719
Treatment wetlands aren't created for habitat, they are created because specific types of treatment wetlands have almost no cost after initial construction. The construction of treatment wetlands isn't in the field of ecology any more than the construction of dams. Sure, ecologists will go and measure the impact these structures have, but no one is going to go and build a dam or treatment wetland as a way to enhance an ecosystem. Treatment wetlands take advantage of natural processes to serve a purpose to society. Also, arguing that Phragmites should be planted as means of making something similar to marshmellows is agriculture. Nobody calls agricultural products invasive when they are sitting in a farm field. All of the wheat, rye, onions etc, that grows in ag fields across the US aren't invasive because they aren't growing in a natural ecosystem, they are growing in a farm field and are being used for agriculture. If a plant escapes the farm field and starts growing in a natural ecosystem, it is will be considered invasive if it has a negative impact. There's a lot of species that have become "naturalized" to a place where a literal interpretation of the word "invasive" would be incorrect. "Invasive" is not a value judgement, it is all about ecology. If a plant has a measurably bad effect on an ecosystem it is present, it is "invasive". The word itself is arbitrary, it's about the idea that a plant is somewhere it is having a negative ecological impact.

Phragmites is a stupid plant for water treatment because aboveground biomass plays a negligible role in treatment wetlands. Cattails are native (although considered by many to be just as invasive, i could get into that if you'd like) and serve the same purpose as phragmites so there's no benefit planting phragmites.
>>
>>1515762
I don't think it's a good idea to act like human beings doing things in the world are something different from the environment or ecosystems.

there is no escaping from value-judgments, even from things that one thinks are natural such as environments. But weighing the pros and cons and having knowledge of what is occurring is very important. I don't know how well human beings can really judge what is best for the entire systems of the world.

There are always going to be philosophically assumptions about what a person thinks nature should be like. Nature changes all the time. one environment shifts into another and yet some would like to stop this natural shifting of one kind of environment turning into another as if nature is some abstract static entity. In reality abstraction is a thing of the human mind.

just because grizzly bears used to be in California does not mean that they should be there or that they should be reintroduced. human beings matter more than a small idea of what it means to preserve the environment.

I'm certainly not trying to say that you're wrong, as if anything is as simple as a "you are 100% wrong or right." I find myself overwhelmed by reality and it becomes very hard to judge what is best.
>>
>>1515798
that's a good point. i just think it leads to a kind of sterility and compromises the ubiquity and beauty of formerly untouched places. eventually every forest is gonna look the same if only the strongest species are allowed to thrive. i wouldn't say it's immoral, as the environment will persist no matter what specific parts compose it, it's just that from an aesthetic/nostalgic POV it's a little disheartening to think a lot of really cool species are gonna go extinct in the process. i'd rather preserve what makes those places different, although that's obviously a luxury and not ethically justified
>>
>>1515798
The only logical conclusion, in my opinion, is to accept that we will never understand the complexity of nature in our lifetime but we are obligated to use the best available science to confront problems that have been identified. Sure, we could argue humans traveling the world and introducing species to new environments is "natural" or maybe it was even pre-determined by God/fate/etc. Some people claim that the extinction event we are witnessing right now is the first "species driven" extinction event in the history of the world but there's evidence that other extinctions in the past were a result of natural processes (not just meteors or volcanoes). Maybe someone more familiar with evolutionary biology could draw a parallel between those extinction events and the one we are living through. However, do we want to live through an extinction event? If we are going to argue that humans introducing invasive plants is natural, how is it not natural to control them?

You can talk yourself in circles concerning the philosophy of invasive species control but the reason it exists at all is a result of pragmatism and not philosophy. The cost of controlling invasive species is seen to be far more cost effective than not controlling them. Controlling plant and animal diseases is an obvious example of the cost benefit of controlling an invasive species. The forestry industry of the Eastern US is negatively impacted by White Pine Blister Rust so it is in the interest of states to develop a method of controlling the disease. Same with the hemlock woolly adelgid for Eastern Hemlock. Some invasive control isn't as easy to translate directly into $$. There are very few people who will support the extinction of native plants because people value the intrinsic and extrinsic value of almost all species (diseases like smallpox being glaring exceptions).
>>
>>1515798
>there is no escaping from value-judgments, even from things that one thinks are natural such as environments. But weighing the pros and cons and having knowledge of what is occurring is very important. I don't know how well human beings can really judge what is best for the entire systems of the world.
If you actually understood the impact invasive species have had in the last 100 years you would understand why they are a major concern from an economic and ecological perspective.
>>
>>1515910
>>1515837
>>1515822
>>1515798
>>1515762
>>1515750

OP here, I wish I could delete this thread.
>>
>>1515910
invasive to where? last time i checked all these 'invasive' are native to planet earth.
>>
>>1515923
Jesus Christ you fucking hippies are dense. Here's your last (you)
>>
>>1515923
This is like high school-tier reasoning.
>>
>>1515913
what are you talking about is it even based
>>
It's willow, you can make baskets, backpacks, and fish-traps, pretty handy tree to have around.
>>
>>1515672
It's edible, medicinal and it's even smokeable in a blend, at least it's not a poisonous plant, like fucking Hogweed, that shit is nightmare fuel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3odmy6rg4k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avZJIw6GyKY
>>
File: cap011.jpg (24 KB, 600x339)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>1517887
>Hogweed
Stands of that shit are starting to pop up around MA and the state's losing their shit trying to control it. Part of me wants to plant them around the property as a phuk-yoo to trespassers but that would be pretty psychotic and also they would just spread and fuck the whole neighborhood
>>
>>1517887
I knew it was a nutritious edible, basically a salad ingredient. Personally, I think it doesn't taste great. But the medicinal properties are interesting. Still, doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most severe invasives in the whole country.
>Hogweed
I don't think I've seen one, but other carrot family invasives are certainly all over. Lot's of cow parsley, for instance, which is technically edible. Of course, a little stupid to eat because of multiple poisonous lookalikes.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.