3 ms·

Sauropods are presumably the heaviest things we know to have worked the land in anything like a sustainable way: being herbivores they obviously can't survive f

Sauropods are presumably the heaviest things we know to have worked the land in anything like a sustainable way: being herbivores they obviously can't survive for long as a species if they permanently damage the soil to the point of being unproductive simply by walking on it. It would be fair to object that what was unsustainable by plants then might not be a problem for more modern plants, but I'm not sure what your comment about other methods aims at. The uncertainty comes from machines reaching previously unexplored weights, comparing with soil effects from lighter methods is unlikely to tell you if there's something bad coming.

jacquesm 4y ago
All we know is that it apparently worked for Sauropods, not what the upper limits are, and it need not have been sustainable, that depends on how big an area they were covering and how many of them there were, that it was sustainable is something the article seems to assume without further consideration. Other methods are more applicable because we actually have data on what works and what doesn't with respect to soil loading, farmers really do not want to damage their land ('damage it in an hour, take a decade to recover') and have learned the hard way not to overload the soil already.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
The resistance of soil to compaction is totally different in a forest with mighty trees and roots, where these beasts presumably roamed, and a barren field of dirt. And secondly, 'sustainable' to a heart of wild beasts does not mean harvest every year - maybe the heard comes back in 20 years when soil has recovered. Lastly, maybe they wheren't sustainable, after all they are extinct.
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  > Lastly, maybe they wheren't sustainable, after all they are extinct. I mean, they existed for tens of millions of years (according to wikipedia), which is 1000's of times longer than the entirety of human farming; I think this easily classified as "sustainable".
  - pbronez 4y ago
    Yes. I think GP’s point is that dinosaurs and big tractors are different enough that it’s unwise to dismiss concerns about this as “well, it worked for the dinosaurs.” Mass and ground loading is just one part of the picture. Roam area, root structure, etc make a difference.
    - SiempreViernes 4y ago
      The point of the article is that from the fact current heavy tractors are ruining soils we should wonder how Sauropods managed to survive despite being worse for the soil.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Oh, thats easy - we are 8 billion, sauropods were a few million. We can't digest cellulose, and sauropods could. We eat mean, and sauropods didn't. If you can digest tree bark and have 5 square kilometers per person you can damage the soil as much as you want, something will still grow. But if you want civilisation to survive, we need a regular harvest of 40 tons per hectare for potato, and if that number falls to 20 there is a famine.
        SiempreViernes 4y ago
        The Sauropods where around for over 20 million years though, but moving at an average of 1 m/s it doesn't take even a year to visit all square metres inside the allotted box.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        That number was for a human - a hectar of land can feed a person, so 500 hectars can feed a person even if you are inefficient, damaging the soil, etc. You are the one advocating we live like Sauropods, so you should be telling us what was the roaming range of one - a male bobcat has roaming range of 20 to 70 sq. Kilometers

jacquesm 4y ago

All we know is that it apparently worked for Sauropods, not what the upper limits are, and it need not have been sustainable, that depends on how big an area they were covering and how many of them there were, that it was sustainable is something the article seems to assume without further consideration. Other methods are more applicable because we actually have data on what works and what doesn't with respect to soil loading, farmers really do not want to damage their land ('damage it in an hour, take a decade to recover') and have learned the hard way not to overload the soil already.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

The resistance of soil to compaction is totally different in a forest with mighty trees and roots, where these beasts presumably roamed, and a barren field of dirt. And secondly, 'sustainable' to a heart of wild beasts does not mean harvest every year - maybe the heard comes back in 20 years when soil has recovered. Lastly, maybe they wheren't sustainable, after all they are extinct.

SiempreViernes 4y ago
> Lastly, maybe they wheren't sustainable, after all they are extinct. I mean, they existed for tens of millions of years (according to wikipedia), which is 1000's of times longer than the entirety of human farming; I think this easily classified as "sustainable".
- pbronez 4y ago
  Yes. I think GP’s point is that dinosaurs and big tractors are different enough that it’s unwise to dismiss concerns about this as “well, it worked for the dinosaurs.” Mass and ground loading is just one part of the picture. Roam area, root structure, etc make a difference.
  - SiempreViernes 4y ago
    The point of the article is that from the fact current heavy tractors are ruining soils we should wonder how Sauropods managed to survive despite being worse for the soil.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Oh, thats easy - we are 8 billion, sauropods were a few million. We can't digest cellulose, and sauropods could. We eat mean, and sauropods didn't. If you can digest tree bark and have 5 square kilometers per person you can damage the soil as much as you want, something will still grow. But if you want civilisation to survive, we need a regular harvest of 40 tons per hectare for potato, and if that number falls to 20 there is a famine.
      - SiempreViernes 4y ago
        The Sauropods where around for over 20 million years though, but moving at an average of 1 m/s it doesn't take even a year to visit all square metres inside the allotted box.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        That number was for a human - a hectar of land can feed a person, so 500 hectars can feed a person even if you are inefficient, damaging the soil, etc. You are the one advocating we live like Sauropods, so you should be telling us what was the roaming range of one - a male bobcat has roaming range of 20 to 70 sq. Kilometers