3 ms·

Thinning the tree population would not achieve anything. Many insects can fly several Km routinely. Bees do it constantly. The beetles probably could do it also

Thinning the tree population would not achieve anything. Many insects can fly several Km routinely. Bees do it constantly. The beetles probably could do it also. So either you remove all trees in a radius of lets say "4 km" or beetles just keep growint. But if you remove all trees in a few Km, then you don't have a forest anymore (neither water, wood, or the other environmental services that the forest provides). More pesticides equal to less birds and bats. Not having birds and bats plus sucking all the water that trees need equal to more beetles. The disdain of politicians (and their voters) for this themes is the root of this problem.

jeffbee 6y ago
So, you didn't read the article? It doesn't say that making the trees further apart prevents the movement of the beetles, it's saying that the tree density is so high that the individual trees can't draw enough water to produce the sap that protects them from the beetles.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  In reply to: >> Isn't this report advocating that thinning the tree population would have blunted the effect of the bark beetle problem? Thinning the tree population wouldn't solve it. Removing part of the dead trees could mitigate it but those trees are essential to beetle predators like woodpeckers. Things in ecology are complex and always connected. The real problem here is the lack of water.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    A snag doesn't draw any water, though, so it seems like you could leave them standing while culling live trees to reduce the areal water demand, right?
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      > A snag doesn't draw any water I had seen this narrative lots of times before. "Fix it for me for free whereas I take the money" because you like the trees, don't you?. Not. Sorry. Is nor is my mission, neither I have the private resources to "draw any water" or fix the consequences of the greed of others. I assume that US government could fix the problem if they wanted, so don't blame on the messenger, please. The current narrative seems to be "forests are expensive so lets remove them and problem solved". Will not work.

jeffbee 6y ago

So, you didn't read the article? It doesn't say that making the trees further apart prevents the movement of the beetles, it's saying that the tree density is so high that the individual trees can't draw enough water to produce the sap that protects them from the beetles.

pvaldes 6y ago
In reply to: >> Isn't this report advocating that thinning the tree population would have blunted the effect of the bark beetle problem? Thinning the tree population wouldn't solve it. Removing part of the dead trees could mitigate it but those trees are essential to beetle predators like woodpeckers. Things in ecology are complex and always connected. The real problem here is the lack of water.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  A snag doesn't draw any water, though, so it seems like you could leave them standing while culling live trees to reduce the areal water demand, right?
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > A snag doesn't draw any water I had seen this narrative lots of times before. "Fix it for me for free whereas I take the money" because you like the trees, don't you?. Not. Sorry. Is nor is my mission, neither I have the private resources to "draw any water" or fix the consequences of the greed of others. I assume that US government could fix the problem if they wanted, so don't blame on the messenger, please. The current narrative seems to be "forests are expensive so lets remove them and problem solved". Will not work.