5 ms·

> potential to be invasive. Is that a real concern when it comes to trees?

shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
Yes, why wouldn't it be? Any non native species can disrupt an ecosystem in any number of ways. For trees for example, they can shade or crowd out native species.
- wnevets 4y ago
  Because trees tend to grow very slowly, which should mean they should be fairly easy to control. Not to mention the useful wood if any population culling needs to occur.
  - Foobar8568 4y ago
    Typically the Japanese knotweed is considered as highly invasive and a pest in Europe. Almost impossible to get rid off due to its fast growth and deep root system.
    - wnevets 4y ago
      According to the internet the Japanese knotweed is not a tree, its a buckwheat. [1] [1] https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/ https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/
      - Foobar8568 4y ago
        There is also the Ailanthus altissima, which also is from Asia/Japan.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        I refuse to believe that if I can't make pancakes out of it.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th... What is and isn't a tree is not as well defined as one would think.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Many trees grow as fast as weeds in the first few years of their life. A single tree can output thousands to millions of seeds in a year. Something can be easy to control when there's 10 of them and impossible when there's a billion of them. Add to that some tree species can be nearly impossible to kill. Cutting them off at the ground does not work, the roots must also be dug up. Any green braches left on the ground can take root and form a new tree.
  - kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
    One more example, the Brazilian Pepper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinus_terebinthifolia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinus_terebinthifolia It grows quickly. I’ve never heard of its wood having any use. While you’re cutting it down, vibration causes its seeds to fall and they sprout later. And you have to burn/poison the stump or else that regrows too.
- jonnycomputer 4y ago
  Maybe ecosystems are always being disrupted?
  - SkittyDog 4y ago
    Honestly trying to clarify... Are you aware that altering existing, stable ecosystems has potentially massive, unpredictable, long-term costs that other humans will have to pay, potentially far outweighing any of the economic benefits of the original human interference? This is pretty basic history, with endless examples of human societies that took short-term gains by screwing with ecosystems for more complex than they could understand... Only to leave behind horrific costs for their descendants and neighbors? And that some of those costs proved so high that they wiped out the societies that came up short, when the bill came due? Are you aware of the countless famines, wars, wildfires, floods, and other disasters that happened as a result? Do you know the body counts of these choices? If you're honestly just ignorant of all this history, I'm gonna suggest that you start by reading Mark Reisner's masterwork: • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert And then maybe follow it up with Jared Diamond: • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choo... If you can at least digest those, whether you agree or disagree with their theses--then I think we'll be ready to have a useful discussion about the wisdom of human interference in existing stable ecosystems.
    - jonnycomputer 4y ago
      Lay off skittyboo; doesn't seem like you are "honestly" trying to clarify anything. Have you considered that you might be making a wildly inaccurate assumption that island ecology tends toward homeostasis? Does it bother you so much that someone might believe that disruption and wild fluctuation might be much more typical of ecosystems, even without the intervention of Homo sapiens sapiens?
      - SkittyDog 4y ago
        So was your original post in bad faith, or not? Your question has an obvious, widely accepted answer... Whether that answer is right or wrong, your failure to reference it comes off as deliberately provocative. And by your response, it seema pretty obvious: Yes, you knew full well the answer before you sarcastically asked your orignal question. If you ask questions in bad faith, using an argumentative tone--then why are you surprised when I respond to you in the same fashion? If you want better replies, you should try writing a better post, in the first place.
BitwiseFool 4y ago
Absolutely, because the trees non-ecologists pick for rapid reforestation happen to grow aggressively and they tend to out compete the local species. They tend to pick either rapidly growing species, or particularly hardy ones. Both characteristics make removing them after introduction difficult. Hawaii has a huge problem with this, but also California. The eucalyptus trees they imported from Australia have had the terrible affect of making wildfires in California even worse. There's also a horrible negative feedback loop because the Eucalyptus is adapted to recover quickly from such fires. "It has been estimated that 70% of the energy released through the combustion of vegetation in the Oakland fire was due to eucalyptus.[41] In a National Park Service study, it was found that the fuel load (in tons per acre) of non-native eucalyptus woods is almost three times as great as native oak woodland." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire
- wnevets 4y ago
  Do you know of other species that have similar issues as Eucalyptus?
  - thedougd 4y ago
    America's favorite (/s) the Bradford Pear. It is invasive and will choke/push out other species. https://extension.umd.edu/resource/bradford-pear https://extension.umd.edu/resource/bradford-pear
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    Amur Honeysuckle, though its sort of more of a shrub.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    Buckthorn in the US is very resilient, crowds out other species of both undergrowth and trees, and is a host to a number of pests such as aphids and fungi which will then attack crops and native species. You can't simply cut it down, it requires a nasty chemical applied to the stump, or to be completely pulled out by the roots. They grow tightly packed together, so clearing out even a small area is best done with a team of people.
HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
Oh my god yes. I'm battling (and probably losing the fight) the dreaded Box Elder Maple. The thing grows like a weed and if you cut it down, it just grows back even larger. You either need to cut it down to a stump (and likely grind the stump to nothing), or cut it and poison what's left so it dies for good. Fkn hate those trees and the bugs they host!
- jonnycomputer 4y ago
  Invasive in Europe. Native to eastern North America. You can also make syrup from the sap, though you need a lot more sap than sugar maple.
bigbillheck 4y ago
Absolutely. I've got one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailanthus_altissima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailanthus_altissima in the back yard that I need to take a saw (and likely more drastic measures) to.
freedomben 4y ago
In the mountain west, the Chinese Elm has exploded. In my neighborhood, 95% of the trees that grew naturally (i.e. they are established, and a human didn't plant them), are Chinese Elm. If it weren't for homeowners planting alternates, I suspect it would be Cottonwood's along the canals, and Chinese Elms everywhere else. Those things spring up everywhere, even cracks of sidewalk where there's no dirt! And their roots go aggressive and deep, and are very hard to get rid of once established.
JadeNB 4y ago
There's at least debate about whether Chinese pistache (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_chinensis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_chinensis) should be considered invasive in Texas.

Yes, why wouldn't it be? Any non native species can disrupt an ecosystem in any number of ways. For trees for example, they can shade or crowd out native species.

wnevets 4y ago
Because trees tend to grow very slowly, which should mean they should be fairly easy to control. Not to mention the useful wood if any population culling needs to occur.
- Foobar8568 4y ago
  Typically the Japanese knotweed is considered as highly invasive and a pest in Europe. Almost impossible to get rid off due to its fast growth and deep root system.
  - wnevets 4y ago
    According to the internet the Japanese knotweed is not a tree, its a buckwheat. [1] [1] https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/ https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/
    - Foobar8568 4y ago
      There is also the Ailanthus altissima, which also is from Asia/Japan.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      I refuse to believe that if I can't make pancakes out of it.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th... What is and isn't a tree is not as well defined as one would think.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Many trees grow as fast as weeds in the first few years of their life. A single tree can output thousands to millions of seeds in a year. Something can be easy to control when there's 10 of them and impossible when there's a billion of them. Add to that some tree species can be nearly impossible to kill. Cutting them off at the ground does not work, the roots must also be dug up. Any green braches left on the ground can take root and form a new tree.
- kwertyoowiyop 4y ago
  One more example, the Brazilian Pepper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinus_terebinthifolia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinus_terebinthifolia It grows quickly. I’ve never heard of its wood having any use. While you’re cutting it down, vibration causes its seeds to fall and they sprout later. And you have to burn/poison the stump or else that regrows too.
jonnycomputer 4y ago
Maybe ecosystems are always being disrupted?
- SkittyDog 4y ago
  Honestly trying to clarify... Are you aware that altering existing, stable ecosystems has potentially massive, unpredictable, long-term costs that other humans will have to pay, potentially far outweighing any of the economic benefits of the original human interference? This is pretty basic history, with endless examples of human societies that took short-term gains by screwing with ecosystems for more complex than they could understand... Only to leave behind horrific costs for their descendants and neighbors? And that some of those costs proved so high that they wiped out the societies that came up short, when the bill came due? Are you aware of the countless famines, wars, wildfires, floods, and other disasters that happened as a result? Do you know the body counts of these choices? If you're honestly just ignorant of all this history, I'm gonna suggest that you start by reading Mark Reisner's masterwork: • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert And then maybe follow it up with Jared Diamond: • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choo... If you can at least digest those, whether you agree or disagree with their theses--then I think we'll be ready to have a useful discussion about the wisdom of human interference in existing stable ecosystems.
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    Lay off skittyboo; doesn't seem like you are "honestly" trying to clarify anything. Have you considered that you might be making a wildly inaccurate assumption that island ecology tends toward homeostasis? Does it bother you so much that someone might believe that disruption and wild fluctuation might be much more typical of ecosystems, even without the intervention of Homo sapiens sapiens?
    - SkittyDog 4y ago
      So was your original post in bad faith, or not? Your question has an obvious, widely accepted answer... Whether that answer is right or wrong, your failure to reference it comes off as deliberately provocative. And by your response, it seema pretty obvious: Yes, you knew full well the answer before you sarcastically asked your orignal question. If you ask questions in bad faith, using an argumentative tone--then why are you surprised when I respond to you in the same fashion? If you want better replies, you should try writing a better post, in the first place.

BitwiseFool 4y ago

Absolutely, because the trees non-ecologists pick for rapid reforestation happen to grow aggressively and they tend to out compete the local species. They tend to pick either rapidly growing species, or particularly hardy ones. Both characteristics make removing them after introduction difficult. Hawaii has a huge problem with this, but also California. The eucalyptus trees they imported from Australia have had the terrible affect of making wildfires in California even worse. There's also a horrible negative feedback loop because the Eucalyptus is adapted to recover quickly from such fires. "It has been estimated that 70% of the energy released through the combustion of vegetation in the Oakland fire was due to eucalyptus.[41] In a National Park Service study, it was found that the fuel load (in tons per acre) of non-native eucalyptus woods is almost three times as great as native oak woodland." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire

wnevets 4y ago
Do you know of other species that have similar issues as Eucalyptus?
- thedougd 4y ago
  America's favorite (/s) the Bradford Pear. It is invasive and will choke/push out other species. https://extension.umd.edu/resource/bradford-pear https://extension.umd.edu/resource/bradford-pear
- jonnycomputer 4y ago
  Amur Honeysuckle, though its sort of more of a shrub.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Buckthorn in the US is very resilient, crowds out other species of both undergrowth and trees, and is a host to a number of pests such as aphids and fungi which will then attack crops and native species. You can't simply cut it down, it requires a nasty chemical applied to the stump, or to be completely pulled out by the roots. They grow tightly packed together, so clearing out even a small area is best done with a team of people.

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago

Oh my god yes. I'm battling (and probably losing the fight) the dreaded Box Elder Maple. The thing grows like a weed and if you cut it down, it just grows back even larger. You either need to cut it down to a stump (and likely grind the stump to nothing), or cut it and poison what's left so it dies for good. Fkn hate those trees and the bugs they host!

jonnycomputer 4y ago
Invasive in Europe. Native to eastern North America. You can also make syrup from the sap, though you need a lot more sap than sugar maple.

bigbillheck 4y ago

Absolutely. I've got one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailanthus_altissima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailanthus_altissima in the back yard that I need to take a saw (and likely more drastic measures) to.

freedomben 4y ago

In the mountain west, the Chinese Elm has exploded. In my neighborhood, 95% of the trees that grew naturally (i.e. they are established, and a human didn't plant them), are Chinese Elm. If it weren't for homeowners planting alternates, I suspect it would be Cottonwood's along the canals, and Chinese Elms everywhere else. Those things spring up everywhere, even cracks of sidewalk where there's no dirt! And their roots go aggressive and deep, and are very hard to get rid of once established.

JadeNB 4y ago

There's at least debate about whether Chinese pistache (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_chinensis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_chinensis) should be considered invasive in Texas.