Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • If there's not at least one goonsay in the memecloud, I can't be held responsible for the actions that I or other concerned citizens of Talkrational might take.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JonF

2
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.  I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."


Well there is a bit of difference between 40 acre light gaps and 400 m2 light gaps. 

And when you expand that to 20,000 400 m2 there might be some impact, even on 1 million acres.
Dave has no comprehension of the relative sizes there. Dave, 400 m2 is 0.1 acre.
3
Geez no. Any animal can go feral at any time. But there would be almost zero negative effect if similar animals already existed in that area.

No I'm sure that all trees do not coppice well. But I'm sure there are many rainforest species that do.
From just an hour before.
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Maybe the above should be:
I, Bluffy, should quit talking out of my ass. If I make authoritative statements like above, then I should give the readers a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that I don't have my own relevant experience, nor education, nor training, but at least I should have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support my authoritative statements, but I don't. And I'm not going to. Ever. Except as a quote-mine.
Good example.
4
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Dave quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statements as you have give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.

As for my statements your avoidance is pathetic. You could argue whether a light gap as discussed in that article could support one or two sheep or goats, but the point is that the light gap caused by a tree fall will be far smaller than your 300 feet by one mile swath.

The fact that you don't understand scaling is long-established. Ten times larger than one tree fall is going to be significantly different. 100 times larger will be vastly different. When you extrapolate results you need to justify the extrapolation. You don't.

I can't prove you don't know what "edge effect", but it's an educated guess based on the fact it's been mentioned as an important factor and you have ignored it. But you can easily prove me wrong. Define "edge effect" in your own words and discuss how it relates to your plan.

Betcha can't.
5
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Light gaps are where a tree falls. You are going to feed sheep and goats in light gaps? It's fortunate that you actually aren't going to do this.
Light gaps inform us what will happen when we create small clearings in rainforest. And as I expected, good things happen in terms of forage growth which is undoubtedly suitable for sheep and goats, judging by the reported increase in these areas in herbivore and predator population.
"Small clearings" maybe capable of sustaining one goat or sheep. Significantly larger clearings are different. You never get this scaling thing.

You are proposing major changes that will destroy what was there and negatively affect ecosystems for miles around. Edge effect. Another critical concept you can't understand or learn.
6
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?
Missing the point as usual.

OF course, your plan is much more dangerous than the rabbits.

The detailed effects of major changes to a critical and complex ecosystem are difficult to predict, as it was difficult to predict the effect of rabbits.  However, we can be sure that your "plan" would bring many major changes to the rainforest, and we can easily bring up some obvious issues. Such as destroying the environment of the majority of organisms.
7
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
I can't tell, Dave: is this
1) You backing off of the "strips" and switching to proposing feeding your livestock in light gaps, or
2) You saying that the "strips" are merely light gaps?
I'm backing off talking about strips for now because I saw too many exploding heads.  One can be a Buddhist. Or one can be a nudist. But if you are a nudist Buddhist, people's heads will explode.
So, you're avoiding even the most important details about your "plan" because so many people pointed out why it's a recipe for disaster.

Got it.
8
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?

Looks like you found your answer:

Quote
A common event in the tropical rainforest is the fall of an emergent tree, usually during a tropical thunderstorm. In fact, it is estimated that tree turnover rates in some rainforests are every 80-135 years. When one of these giants--laden with lianas connected to neighboring trees--falls, it takes out a sizeable portion of the canopy. This hole in the canopy is known as a "light gap" because direct sunlight reaches the floor in contrast to the usual 1-5 percent under full canopy conditions. The opening of a light gap brings many changes to the section of rainforest.

The light gap is rapidly colonized by the same pioneer species that colonize clearings including trees like cecropia, balsa, macaranga, musanga, and bamboo, and shrubby plants like gingers, bananas, nightshades, climbing lianas, and rattan palms. These species are well-adapted for rapid growth, but not for long-term existence in the forest. Their often white wood and leaves with poor chemical protection are subject to infection and infestation by insects. Generally, these pioneers flower rapidly and produce numerous fruits, but are soon overtaken by the hardier, better adapted hardwood trees which fill in the gap in the canopy. Many forest tree species are dependent on light gaps to complete their life cycle.

As a result of the increased light and abundance of fruits produced by gap colonists, light gaps are areas of increased animal activity. Carnivorous animals follow the herbivorous animals that are attracted to the fruiting plants.

I don't see anything about leaching :dunno:
Is there some reason you should?  Is that meant to be an exhaustive list of effects?
9
Oh crap why did it copy all that?
You posted the HTML source of the page.
10
Is it your contention, Hawkins, that any tree can be coppiced?
Not saying that but I suspect most can be. I[1] don't have a scintilla of a clue.
FIFY
Dave.
11
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
If what people are saying is true about rainforest tree roots being shallow, and we cut down some of them, except we don't kill them, we leave the stumps for coppicing and other plants grow better because of more sunlight reaching them, then I fail to see how any water flow would be affected.  You seem to be reciting things you've read while not really engaging your brain.  I encounter this constantly.  It's an unfortunate human phenomenon.
Now, quite a bit of the rain doesn't reach the ground, and what does is slowed by caroming off leaves and whatnot..

So you are proposing to add water that hits the ground harder.

And make many other plants grow much worse, destroying the ecosystem.

Many rainforest trees cannot be coppiced.
You are talking out your ass. Come on man. You can do better than that.
Translates to "I[1] got nuthin', so I'll ignore this and repeat my[2] bullshit again soon.
Dave.
Dave's.
12
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
If what people are saying is true about rainforest tree roots being shallow, and we cut down some of them, except we don't kill them, we leave the stumps for coppicing and other plants grow better because of more sunlight reaching them, then I fail to see how any water flow would be affected.  You seem to be reciting things you've read while not really engaging your brain.  I encounter this constantly.  It's an unfortunate human phenomenon.
Now, quite a bit of the rain doesn't reach the ground, and what does is slowed by caroming off leaves and whatnot..

So you are proposing to add water that hits the ground harder.

And make many other plants grow much worse, destroying the ecosystem.

Many rainforest trees cannot be coppiced.
13
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
Oh here we go again. This was beautiful. The Sahara Desert is actually a good thing because it keeps the Amazon rainforest going.

ROFL
It is an important factor in keeping the rainforest going. 


14
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
I don't know what the percent is. But it's got to be pretty close to 100% because soil scientists like Elaine Ingham tell us that if you measure the soluble fertilizer content of rainforest soils you will barely get a reading at all. Which is really interesting because it tells us that some of the best plant growth on the planet is achieved entirely without a man-made product which most mainstream agriculturalists think is indispensable for growing plants. That is, commercial fertilizers.
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.

The reason you barely get a reading for soluble fertilizer content in the rainforests is because if it wasn't sucked up almost as soon as it was produced by the trees it would get leached away. Which is what happens when you get rid of the trees. What little nutrients you put back by burning or composting the cleared forests rapidly leach away. There isn't a store of nutrients that you can rely on as in Missouri or other grasslands.


I agree with most of this.

And I agree that if you remove large numbers of trees like the mega farms do then what you are saying here is generally what will happen.

BUT ...

I'm not proposing to remove large numbers of trees.
You are proposing to remove large numbers of trees.

Quote
In fact I've asked a question about what do you think would happen if I just removed one large tree, and I didn't even remove it completely but left the roots and stump in place for coppicing.
Which has nothing to do with the current topic.
Quote
What say you?
Nobody gives a fuck about your stupid scenario.
15
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
I got one answer on this question. From Borealis. Anyone else?
I answered.

The next number after one is two.
16
Dave all that has to happen for nutrients to be in a form that can be subject to leaching is for them to be water soluble. Funnily enough that's also the form they have to be in for them to be available to plants.
Yes but what you keep missing even though I've talked about it several times is the fact that there's a very short distance between the ass end of a protozoan and the root hair on which he takes a dump.
[citation required]

Quote
And there's a very short time span between when this protozoa poop leaves the protozoa's ass and enters the root hairs' mouth.
If there's water instead of air between the protozoa and the root, how long does it take to dissolve?

Quote
  Yes I'm anthropomorphizing here a bit to make a point. I do realize that there is no actual ass and no actual mouth, okay? The point of all this is that the nutrients don't have a chance to get leached away because the nutrient Loop is so tight.
What essential nutrients are in protozoa poo?
nitrogen, at least.
So from where and how do plants get the rest of the essential nutrients?

Also see above.  In red.
18
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leaching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.

It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
Leaching has been observed in rainforest soil.
19
Dave all that has to happen for nutrients to be in a form that can be subject to leaching is for them to be water soluble. Funnily enough that's also the form they have to be in for them to be available to plants.
Yes but what you keep missing even though I've talked about it several times is the fact that there's a very short distance between the ass end of a protozoan and the root hair on which he takes a dump.
[citation required]

Quote
And there's a very short time span between when this protozoa poop leaves the protozoa's ass and enters the root hairs' mouth.
If there's water instead of air between the protozoa and the root, how long does it take to dissolve?

Quote
  Yes I'm anthropomorphizing here a bit to make a point. I do realize that there is no actual ass and no actual mouth, okay? The point of all this is that the nutrients don't have a chance to get leached away because the nutrient Loop is so tight.
What essential nutrients are in protozoa poo?

20
Soil net Huh? Well if we're going to believe them, then I guess we need to rescue the rainforest because all those poor trees are lacking in nutrients and no doubt we'll all be dead in a few decades.

What do you (or soil net) propose  should be done?
Click the link, dumbass.
Ok I did. But I should point out that I didn't say that rainforest soils have not been leached. I just said there is no leaching. As in currently. This link does claim that they have been leached which is an assumption because they really don't know that for sure having not been there millions of years ago when these rainforest were supposedly first formed. And it's probably a wrong assumption because why would there ever have been nutrients in a form that would be subject to leaching in the first place?
Today's rainforests are and have been in equilibrium.

Of course you don'r understand equilibrium.
21
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 
Soil-Net begs to differ:
Quote
Tropical soils are often several metres deep, but the soils are often washed out, or strongly leached, with large amounts of nutrients and minerals being removed from the subsoils and considerable thickness of rock broken down to produce soil. Over many millions of years this leaching has left most of the soils lacking many of the fundamental nutrients needed by the above ground vegetation.
Soil net Huh? Well if we're going to believe them, then I guess we need to rescue the rainforest because all those poor trees are lacking in nutrients and no doubt we'll all be dead in a few decades.
Leaching happens.  Observed.

Rainforest trees do not significantly lack nutrients.  Observed.

Deal.
22
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 
That is indeed the fantasy you've concocted.

Scientists who have observed rainforest soil have observed and measured leaching.

Quote
But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?
Leaching will continue as before, perhaps at a slightly higher rate.

Quote
Why or why not?
Leaching happens in rainforest soil.  In your scenario more rainwater may reach the forest floor, increasing the rate of leaching.
24
No I'm not planning for helium Zircon research.
That was my point.

These grandiose plans of yours never materialize.
You don't seem to have recognized that pattern.
Doesn't seem very grandiose to help a small indigenous people group at the bottom of Guyana to feed themselves sustainably does it?  Also seems pretty achievable given the fact that my father, who these people practically worship, asked me to do it and the village leaders have also asked me to do it, and I have already been there once on a survey trip.

Not grandiose.

Probably achievable.

What's the problem?
Your naivete, ignorance, and general incompetence.
25
Also the shallow roots in rainforest trees is not a consideration in this discussion because what we are talking about is shade species versus non shade species. We're not even talking about depth of roots. There are plenty of shallow-rooted species that love sunlight and what's more plants adapt to their environment very quickly which you would know if you knew anything about evolution. What you don't because you've bought Darwin mumbo-jumbo Hook Line & Sinker.
We're talking about leaching.
You are, but I'm not. It's irrelevant in a discussion about what I am proposing to do.
So the many pages in which we discussed leaching and you claimed none would happen do not exist?