Advertisement
by Valrifell » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:20 pm
by Salus Maior » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:04 pm
by Xerographica » Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:39 am
Costa Fierro wrote:Anyways, citing examples really doesn't prove that the consequences of introducing a new species are "almost always" negative.
It does, that's literally the whole point of providing evidence.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Aggicificicerous » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:11 am
Xerographica wrote:
Perhaps you're under the impression that nobody has comprehensively studied the consequences of introducing new species? In this case, it wouldn't make sense to look for something that you're sure doesn't exist. But then your belief would be based on a study that doesn't exist.
Xerographica wrote:To be clear, I do acknowledge that there can be negative consequences of introducing species. But do you know how tiny orchid seeds are? Do you know how tiny fern spore is? It's not like the wind only carries these tiny seeds/spore to places where the plants are already established. If it was the case that 99 out of 100 new introductions have negative consequences, then there wouldn't be any biodiversity. But obviously there is biodiversity, some places are even super biodiverse. So it can't be the case that the consequences of immigration are "almost always" negative. This is simply because there are always unoccupied niches. Nature abhors unoccupied niches, and so should we. We should detest the fact that virtually all the trees in North America don't have epiphytes growing on them.
by Xerographica » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:41 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote:
Perhaps you're under the impression that nobody has comprehensively studied the consequences of introducing new species? In this case, it wouldn't make sense to look for something that you're sure doesn't exist. But then your belief would be based on a study that doesn't exist.
You have your heart in the right place, but interspecies interactions are extremely complex. Just conducting a study that thoroughly examines the consequences of introducing a single new species to an ecosystem is virtually impossible; even if you were to map out all the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of different interactions, you still can't be sure how the new species will react. Randomness plays a large part, and many introduced organisms can't adapt quickly enough and die. Most organisms, I would wager. Of those that survive, how will the ecosystem react? What will it look like in fifty years? It's impossible to know. Our understanding of life is not so advanced that we can plug everything into a computer and calculate the outcome, if such a computer program could ever be designed.
I have, also, reason to believe that humble-bees are indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. From experiments which I have lately tried, I have found that the visits of bees are necessary for the fertilisation of some kinds of clover; but humble-bees alone visit the red clover (Trifolium pratense), as other bees cannot reach the nectar. Hence I have very little doubt, that if the whole genus of humble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear. The number of humble-bees in any district depends in a great degree on the number of field-mice, which destroy their combs and nests; and Mr. H. Newman, who has long attended to the habits of humble-bees, believes that "more than two-thirds of them are thus destroyed all over England." Now the number of mice is largely dependent, as every one knows, on the number of cats; and Mr. Newman says, "Near villages and small towns I have found the nests of humble-bees more numerous than elsewhere, which I attribute to the number of cats that destroy the mice." Hence it is quite credible that the presence of a feline animal in large numbers in a district might determine, through the intervention first of mice and then of bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district! - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote:To be clear, I do acknowledge that there can be negative consequences of introducing species. But do you know how tiny orchid seeds are? Do you know how tiny fern spore is? It's not like the wind only carries these tiny seeds/spore to places where the plants are already established. If it was the case that 99 out of 100 new introductions have negative consequences, then there wouldn't be any biodiversity. But obviously there is biodiversity, some places are even super biodiverse. So it can't be the case that the consequences of immigration are "almost always" negative. This is simply because there are always unoccupied niches. Nature abhors unoccupied niches, and so should we. We should detest the fact that virtually all the trees in North America don't have epiphytes growing on them.
This doesn't make sense. If nature abhors an unoccupied niche, then unoccupied niches will get filled very quickly. Trees in North America have a plethora of organisms growing on them, from bacteria and other single-celled organisms to lichens and mosses to anthropods. If trees lack epiphytes, it is most likely because the epiphytes are not adapted to those trees in that habitat. You can try to propagate the boreal forests with bromeliads, but I doubt you'll have much success. Diversity is not some economic model that you can increase and increase. Habitats left on their own are by necessity efficient.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Aggicificicerous » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:59 am
Xerographica wrote:
"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.
Xerographica wrote:Perhaps it would help if you explain where you draw the line and why you draw it there. Let's say that you're walking in a forest where Spanish moss grows the furthest north. You spot a big clump of it on the ground. It will die if left on the ground... would you pick it up and put it on a nearby branch?
by The Holy Therns » Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:50 am
Xerographica wrote:"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.
Gallade wrote:Love, cake, wine and banter. No greater meaning to life (〜^∇^)〜
Ethel mermania wrote:to therns is to transend the pettiness of the field of play into the field of dreams.
by Xerographica » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:06 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote:
"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.
Not sure why you're quoting Darwin at me, but the movement of epiphytes is tied to the changing climate. Temperatures are rising, and organisms are moving north in response. We have no reason to want to speed this up, even if we were ridiculous enough to not want to halt climate change.
Aggicificicerous wrote:Just because you love epiphytes doesn't mean there aren't consequences what's happening; species we now considered native are going to be pushed out and possibly become extirpated. Remember that niche thing you harped on about so lovingly? Well it turns out that when one species succeeds in filling a niche, other species fail and perish.
Aggregations comprised of organisms as disparate as barnacles, coral reef fish, and moist tropical forest trees where epiphyte loads may help promote gaps (Strong 1977) all maintain associations in part through lottery-like rotations that prevent competitive exclusion. Dense packing is possible because none of the resident populations is sufficiently mobile or fecund to prevent coexistence. Communities persist because vacant sites (regenerative niches) are usually filled by the first propagule to arrive, an event that does not favor one parent species over another. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
Overgrowth of one plant by another is exceptional; instability seems to be too great and living space too fragmented to allow even the most aggressive epiphyte to match the expansion over large areas achieved by many a terrestrial via seeds or ramets. Thus epiphyte synusiae are, perhaps more than some others, shaped by disturbance and patchiness rather than by competition. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
The disproportionate proliferation of epiphytes compared to plants of several other habits makes yet another case for the promotive effects of tree crowns as sites for cladogenesis. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
Within a forest, total bark surface greatly exceeds that of ground area and can be more densely packed with plants. Rooting media in canopies are also diverse, although whether more or less so than soil is unclear. In effect, tree crowns may be especially permissive habitats that foster dense species packing for vascular and nonvascular plants alike. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
Very likely, much of the epiphyte synusia is not yet saturated with either biomass or taxa, even in tropical America; perhaps insufficient stock limits colonization everywhere, but especially in the paleotropics. Too few lineages have evolved adequate stress tolerance for a broader epiphyte presence in seasonal woodlands. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:08 am
The Holy Therns wrote:Xerographica wrote:"Quickly" is a matter of perspective. Right now there are three species of vascular and tropical epiphytes "racing" to Canada. Well, all the tropical epiphytes in the Americas are racing to Canada... but these three species are in the lead. Nature badly wants Canadian trees to be full of epiphytes. We should want the same thing and do what we can to speed up the process. In other words, we should facilitate the adaptive radiation of epiphytes.
Nature doesn't want things.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by The Holy Therns » Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:25 pm
Gallade wrote:Love, cake, wine and banter. No greater meaning to life (〜^∇^)〜
Ethel mermania wrote:to therns is to transend the pettiness of the field of play into the field of dreams.
by Aggicificicerous » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:29 pm
Xerographica wrote:Ummm... the movement of epiphytes is tied to climate change? Well yeah, climate is always changing and organisms adapt/migrate or go extinct. Were you specifically referring to anthropogenic climate change? If so, when did you think it started? And when do you think the epiphyte race to Canada started?
Xerographica wrote:Which species are the three tropical epiphytes in America pushing out?
Xerographica wrote:Imagine if every tree in the world was epiphytically enriched. What do you think would happen to anthropogenic climate change?
by Costa Fierro » Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:43 pm
Xerographica wrote:Imagine that you're arguing that the consequences of women voting are "almost always" negative. It isn't enough to simply cite a few examples of negative consequences.
by Luziyca » Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:44 pm
Albrenia wrote:I imagine one would have to be careful lest new species choke out the native flora and fauna via competition for the same resources.
by Xerographica » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:57 pm
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote:Ummm... the movement of epiphytes is tied to climate change? Well yeah, climate is always changing and organisms adapt/migrate or go extinct. Were you specifically referring to anthropogenic climate change? If so, when did you think it started? And when do you think the epiphyte race to Canada started?
Of course I was referring to anthropogenic climate change; it is occurring far faster than the climate regularly changes, which is what will lead to a whole lot of extirpation and extinction. That's a net loss of biodiversity.
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote:Which species are the three tropical epiphytes in America pushing out?
You said it yourself: every niche must be filled. New species coming in means old species being pushed out. Moreso will be the effects of the changing climate in pushing out organisms and destroying symbiotic relationships, however.
If you want a list of all the forest organisms in southern Canada, I'm not going to humour you. You can look for that yourself. Here's a few of them including some native Canadian epiphytes.
http://w3.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/temprain.htm
If you're interested in reading up on ecological succession and symbiotic relationships, which I recommend, here's a few resources to get started.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317043/ (the section on lichen should be particularly relevant)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession
This book is pretty good. I'd suggest reading the bits on succession. https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=73 ... &q&f=false
Aggregations comprised of organisms as disparate as barnacles, coral reef fish, and moist tropical forest trees where epiphyte loads may help promote gaps (Strong 1977) all maintain associations in part through lottery-like rotations that prevent competitive exclusion. Dense packing is possible because none of the resident populations is sufficiently mobile or fecund to prevent coexistence. Communities persist because vacant sites (regenerative niches) are usually filled by the first propagule to arrive, an event that does not favor one parent species over another. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
Overgrowth of one plant by another is exceptional; instability seems to be too great and living space too fragmented to allow even the most aggressive epiphyte to match the expansion over large areas achieved by many a terrestrial via seeds or ramets. Thus epiphyte synusiae are, perhaps more than some others, shaped by disturbance and patchiness rather than by competition. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
The disproportionate proliferation of epiphytes compared to plants of several other habits makes yet another case for the promotive effects of tree crowns as sites for cladogenesis. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
Within a forest, total bark surface greatly exceeds that of ground area and can be more densely packed with plants. Rooting media in canopies are also diverse, although whether more or less so than soil is unclear. In effect, tree crowns may be especially permissive habitats that foster dense species packing for vascular and nonvascular plants alike. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
Very likely, much of the epiphyte synusia is not yet saturated with either biomass or taxa, even in tropical America; perhaps insufficient stock limits colonization everywhere, but especially in the paleotropics. Too few lineages have evolved adequate stress tolerance for a broader epiphyte presence in seasonal woodlands. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote:Imagine if every tree in the world was epiphytically enriched. What do you think would happen to anthropogenic climate change?
Trees are already epiphytically enriched. The natural world is efficient by necessity; if a niche exists, it will be filled. If a tree has no epiphytes, it most likely means that epiphytes couldn't survive.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:00 am
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Costa Fierro » Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:24 am
Valrifell wrote:Species introduced to new areas have a high chance of becoming invasive and we don't really know why some species become invasive and harmful and why some don't.
by The Holy Therns » Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:47 am
Gallade wrote:Love, cake, wine and banter. No greater meaning to life (〜^∇^)〜
Ethel mermania wrote:to therns is to transend the pettiness of the field of play into the field of dreams.
by The Holy Therns » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:01 am
Gallade wrote:Love, cake, wine and banter. No greater meaning to life (〜^∇^)〜
Ethel mermania wrote:to therns is to transend the pettiness of the field of play into the field of dreams.
by Aggicificicerous » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:39 am
Xerographica wrote:But the epiphyte race to Canada started way before anthropogenic climate change (ACC). Will ACC make it harder for the contestants to reach Canada? Maybe.
Xerographica wrote:Ummm, I'm not sure what happened. I shared several passages that explained that, unlike with terrestrial plants, with epiphytes it's not a zero sum game...
Did you not read these passages? Or did you not understand them?
Aggicificicerous wrote:I think you have some fundamental misunderstanding of how the natural world works. Epiphytes most likely started out in environments with year around warmth and rain. Over time they started adapting to colder/hotter/drier environments. Now there are some epiphytic orchids that grow on cactus and other epiphytic orchids that can handle freezing temps. Each day there are countless epiphytic orchids that are being naturally selected for tolerance to heat/cold/drought. The survivors are able to colonize more and more stressful habitats.
So no, just because a tree doesn't already have an orchid growing on it doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't have an orchid growing on it. The issue is whether we want to facilitate the process of adaptive radiation.
by Xerographica » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:35 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:You're just thinking of stacking more and more species on top of each other because you have this bizarre notion that more is always better, but if it was so much better, it would have already happened.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Aggicificicerous » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:24 pm
Xerographica wrote:This summer it got to be 114F degrees here where I live. Do you know what happened to my epiphytes? They baked. They fried. They cooked. However, they weren't equally harmed by the extreme heat, because they are all different. Plus, they are also in different locations in the garden. Variation is a good thing. It's the best thing. There's no progress without difference.
Xerographica wrote:It IS happening! According to this page, Florida has around 20 species of epiphytic orchids. Do you think this number has always been the same? Do you think it will always be the same? A million years ago Florida had 20 species of epiphytic orchids? In a million years Florida will still only have 20 species of epiphytic orchids?
by Xerographica » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:48 pm
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote:This summer it got to be 114F degrees here where I live. Do you know what happened to my epiphytes? They baked. They fried. They cooked. However, they weren't equally harmed by the extreme heat, because they are all different. Plus, they are also in different locations in the garden. Variation is a good thing. It's the best thing. There's no progress without difference.
Not seeing how a few plants in your controlled garden environment (in Florida?) are relevant to the overall movement of plants north.
Aggicificicerous wrote:Xerographica wrote:It IS happening! According to this page, Florida has around 20 species of epiphytic orchids. Do you think this number has always been the same? Do you think it will always be the same? A million years ago Florida had 20 species of epiphytic orchids? In a million years Florida will still only have 20 species of epiphytic orchids?
It looks like you're just rambling to yourself now.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Aggicificicerous » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:53 pm
Xerographica wrote:You said that ACC will most likely make it easier for tropical epiphytes to reach Canada. I gave a counter example of how extreme heat here in Southern California adversely affected my epiphytes.
Xerographica wrote:I'm saying that Florida should have a lot more than 20 species of epiphytic orchids, and you're saying that it shouldn't. Correct? So why shouldn't Florida have more species of epiphytic orchids? Why is the status quo more beneficial than more biodiversity?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Bovad, Danyum, Dumb Ideologies, Entropan, Horvat, Hurdergaryp, Minoa, Outer Sparta, Statesburg, Tungstan, Uan aa Boa, Worms-sovereignty was never ceded
Advertisement