4 ms·

The trees in the Midwest exist because people put them there. The real prarie is what is gone.

by R0b0t1 5y ago

ciphol 5y ago
The "real prarie" was created by Native Americans burning trees. Trees are what happens when no humans are around (what some would call "natural").
- thecolorblue 5y ago
  Plenty of other animals will destroy trees to keep the plains the way they are. Pretty much any large mammal will trample saplings and rub up against larger trees until they die. This is easier to see on the African plains with elephants.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  Your natural history is way off. There's no trees on the prarie because it's dryer than the surrounding area and the grass fires burn the saplings before they grow. The climate of the interior US doesn't mesh well with forests.
  - oska 5y ago
    I think you're overconfident in your understanding here. It's a very complex subject. Removal of trees from an area of land will result in greater dryness. Trees, in a substantial way, create their own climate and can increase precipitation.
    - R0b0t1 5y ago
      I'm aware, but where are you getting your knowledge specifically of the American plains? They were called the great plains since the founding of the country, because the settlers encountered plains, because they've been plains for approximately 25 million years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains.
      - oska 5y ago
        I'm certainly no expert on the Great Plains but for a decent understanding of its vegetation history I wouldn't turn to wikipedia but instead look to see if there have been any decent pollen analyses done. After a short search I found one study [1] that said: > Nonarboreal pollen comprises between 37% and 86% of the assemblage throughout the record with the largest percentages occurring during the mid-Holocene (~8000–4000 yr BP). The pollen record also suggests that at 8200 yr BP, there was an abrupt shift from oak-elm woodland to a more open landscape of grassland or savanna, which remained through out the mid-Holocene. Additionally, the pollen data suggest that vegetation composition exhibited little change in diversity through time despite recurring fire. Charcoal concentrations varied from 30 to nearly 1200particles cm−3, indicating changes in relative amount of biomass burned, but the morphotypes of charcoal pieces indicate that woody fuels persisted during the mid-Holocene despite the apparent grassland-dominated landscape. Magnetic susceptibility in the sediment ranges from −0.9 to 22.4 (×10−5 SI) throughout the record, with the biggest increase occurring as the vegetation shifted from woodland to grassland entering the mid-Holocene. So I'd suggest that the change from oak-elm woodland to more open grassland or savanna was possibly (probably?) precipitated by the arrival of humans in North America. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Berangere-Leys/publication/281034654_Great_Plains_vegetation_dynamics_in_response_to_fire_and_climatic_fluctuations_during_the_Holocene_at_Fox_Lake_Minnesota_USA/links/561e6e1708ae50795afef889/Great-Plains-vegetation-dynamics-in-response-to-fire-and-climatic-fluctuations-during-the-Holocene-at-Fox-Lake-Minnesota-USA.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Berangere-Leys/publicat...
        R0b0t1 5y ago
        Very interesting, I'll take another look. However if we take the paper at face value circa 8200BP there was some widespread climate event which is likely what drove the change, not people. Why I consider this paper suspect is that the mechanism that drives the modern preservation of the prarie and sometimes its encroachment into existing woodland is well understood. It doesn't require the involvement of people. It does not exist today because the grassland is gone. Lightning during the drier days of fall would lead to grass fires, burning the trees. There were microenvirons near streams that had trees but they were not common.

The trees in the Midwest exist because people put them there. The real prarie is what is gone.

by R0b0t1 5y ago

The trees in the Midwest exist because people put them there. The real prarie is what is gone.

The "real prarie" was created by Native Americans burning trees. Trees are what happens when no humans are around (what some would call "natural").

thecolorblue 5y ago
Plenty of other animals will destroy trees to keep the plains the way they are. Pretty much any large mammal will trample saplings and rub up against larger trees until they die. This is easier to see on the African plains with elephants.
R0b0t1 5y ago
Your natural history is way off. There's no trees on the prarie because it's dryer than the surrounding area and the grass fires burn the saplings before they grow. The climate of the interior US doesn't mesh well with forests.
- oska 5y ago
  I think you're overconfident in your understanding here. It's a very complex subject. Removal of trees from an area of land will result in greater dryness. Trees, in a substantial way, create their own climate and can increase precipitation.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    I'm aware, but where are you getting your knowledge specifically of the American plains? They were called the great plains since the founding of the country, because the settlers encountered plains, because they've been plains for approximately 25 million years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains.
    - oska 5y ago
      I'm certainly no expert on the Great Plains but for a decent understanding of its vegetation history I wouldn't turn to wikipedia but instead look to see if there have been any decent pollen analyses done. After a short search I found one study [1] that said: > Nonarboreal pollen comprises between 37% and 86% of the assemblage throughout the record with the largest percentages occurring during the mid-Holocene (~8000–4000 yr BP). The pollen record also suggests that at 8200 yr BP, there was an abrupt shift from oak-elm woodland to a more open landscape of grassland or savanna, which remained through out the mid-Holocene. Additionally, the pollen data suggest that vegetation composition exhibited little change in diversity through time despite recurring fire. Charcoal concentrations varied from 30 to nearly 1200particles cm−3, indicating changes in relative amount of biomass burned, but the morphotypes of charcoal pieces indicate that woody fuels persisted during the mid-Holocene despite the apparent grassland-dominated landscape. Magnetic susceptibility in the sediment ranges from −0.9 to 22.4 (×10−5 SI) throughout the record, with the biggest increase occurring as the vegetation shifted from woodland to grassland entering the mid-Holocene. So I'd suggest that the change from oak-elm woodland to more open grassland or savanna was possibly (probably?) precipitated by the arrival of humans in North America. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Berangere-Leys/publication/281034654_Great_Plains_vegetation_dynamics_in_response_to_fire_and_climatic_fluctuations_during_the_Holocene_at_Fox_Lake_Minnesota_USA/links/561e6e1708ae50795afef889/Great-Plains-vegetation-dynamics-in-response-to-fire-and-climatic-fluctuations-during-the-Holocene-at-Fox-Lake-Minnesota-USA.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Berangere-Leys/publicat...
      - R0b0t1 5y ago
        Very interesting, I'll take another look. However if we take the paper at face value circa 8200BP there was some widespread climate event which is likely what drove the change, not people. Why I consider this paper suspect is that the mechanism that drives the modern preservation of the prarie and sometimes its encroachment into existing woodland is well understood. It doesn't require the involvement of people. It does not exist today because the grassland is gone. Lightning during the drier days of fall would lead to grass fires, burning the trees. There were microenvirons near streams that had trees but they were not common.