Article

2005-07-29 -Short Attention Span Theater-

'Myth' that forests improve water flows - study

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by too true 2005-07-29 12:46|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sounds like another case of junk eco science. Things sound logical so they must be true. Research? We don't need no steenkin' research!

Posted by Xbalanke 2005-07-29 12:57|| 2005-07-29 12:57|| Front Page Top

#2 BUT I LIKE TREES. We just need lots of huge desalination plants to feed them.
Why?
Because I LIKE TREES.

The first place to cover with trees should be Saudi Arabia.
Why?
Because Saudis like deserts and I like trees.

Posted by 3dc 2005-07-29 13:17|| 2005-07-29 13:17|| Front Page Top

#3 This is a situation of an obscene number of variables being ignored to justify blanket statements on either side of the argument. First of all, trees are adapted to a particular environment. If they cannot exist in that environment without damaging it, they won't naturally live there. Second thing, these boffins aren't talking about situations of ecological equilibrium. They want *more* fresh water out of the same ecosystem. It has to come at the expense of something, so what will that something be? Third, do you want more surface water or more ground water? The ways you go about getting them are very different. Fourth, the biggest producers of fresh water beyond what naturally occur are first through mining, agricultural, and industrial conservation and second through artificial production, like desalinization and induced rainfall (not cloud seeding, but enhancing coastal ocean evaporation to send moisture inland).

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-07-29 13:51|| 2005-07-29 13:51|| Front Page Top

#4 I recommend ripping out all the trees and replacing the topsoil with a 50% vermiculite mixture.

Posted by ed 2005-07-29 13:57|| 2005-07-29 13:57|| Front Page Top

#5 Mmmmmmmmmm...trees!
Is okay to eat now, yes?

Posted by Kim Jong Starving 2005-07-29 14:07|| 2005-07-29 14:07|| Front Page Top

#6 I like trees too. I actually own about 12 acres of mixed fir, pine, madrona and oak I like them so much.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-29 14:10|| 2005-07-29 14:10|| Front Page Top

#7 The problem are "tree monocultures". A health forest with a variety of trees that always grew thereis a wonderful thing.

Eucalypts suck (sorry except in Australia)

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-29 15:03|| 2005-07-29 15:03|| Front Page Top

#8 You hate them? Not as much as I do. This new house has a 40 foot tall one in the front yard next to the driveway. It will be removed soon. They are filthy and do noting but drop leaves bark and branches. Eucalyptus trees suck.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-29 15:19|| 2005-07-29 15:19|| Front Page Top

#9 While I appreciate the fire hazards associated with eucalyptus trees, for pure suckage, nothing compares with a female ginko tree. In college, we called them "dogshit trees", because their "fruit", which invariably dropped on the sidewalk and got tracked into the buildings, smelled like dogshit.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-29 15:26|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-29 15:26|| Front Page Top

#10 what Moose said.... and no little tiny robots neede.

I have 18 80 yr old plus oaks.... I figure one's gonna get me.

Posted by Shipman 2005-07-29 15:36|| 2005-07-29 15:36|| Front Page Top

#11 SPoD, You think they're bad now, wait till there's a fire.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-29 15:58|| 2005-07-29 15:58|| Front Page Top

#12 I could have told them this for free. Not cutting the brush in our water catchment areas over 20 years has cut runoff into Perth's dams by almost half and as a consequence I have to endure deceipful advertisements blaming 'our drying climate', which is total crap.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-29 15:59|| 2005-07-29 15:59|| Front Page Top

#13 The TTRREEEESSSSS!!!!!!
Must have more TTRREEEESSSSS!!!!!!

I can feel my oxygen slipping away [cough] [cough]

Posted by Almost Anonymous2520 2005-07-29 16:15|| 2005-07-29 16:15|| Front Page Top

#14 "Many trees, especially fast-growing species like pines and eucalyptus favored by the paper industry, suck more water from the ground than other crops, it said. The water transpires from the leaves and so the trees dry out the land."

"Water transpires from the leaves" - no, into the atmosphere you say?

The point is that forest do offset erosion - root systems hold topsoil in place. While they use water, isn't water also a byproduct of their metabolism?

Granted you don't want to use leafy trees because of the support issue. Pine Trees should be fine though.

I am not a tree surgeon, but this is poor analysis for a high school student.

Posted by flash91 2005-07-29 19:11|| 2005-07-29 19:11|| Front Page Top

#15 Screw the trees. Chop them down and bring down the price of lumber for my woodworking hobby. 200 bf of mahogany. Is that too much to ask? ;)

Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats 2005-07-29 23:02|| http://www.punictreachery.com/]">[http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2005-07-29 23:02|| Front Page Top

#16 Then why is it always wetter, and cooler, under the trees, and in the forested soil, than in clearcut areas or grasslands of the Pacific Northwest?

If not A, then not B, and since A's and B's are C's, then all C's suck. Hence, if we want water, we have to kill all the trees. Great stuff.

Posted by Asedwich">Asedwich 2005-07-29 23:46|| 2005-07-29 23:46|| Front Page Top

00:02 MunkarKat
23:46 Asedwich
23:39 SteveS
23:34 DMFD
23:33 SteveS
23:32 Pappy
23:24 jules 2
23:17 djohn66
23:16 Alaska Paul
23:09 Robert Crawford
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:02 Laurence of the Rats
22:50 too true
22:48 Super Hose
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:42 Super Hose
22:38 MunkarKat
22:35 Super Hose
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:33 Bobby
22:32 Super Hose
22:26 Jack Ruby
22:25 Just About Enough!