mid Atlantic fungal epidemic. Anyone else seeing this?

[GGB]

@PABonsai I mostly do agree with what you said. I’m also aware that we have more forests now than 100 years ago. But 100 years ago we cut the forests down, now they’re just dying off beyond our control.
I keep things fairly brief on here but I went to school for environmental science. I’m fully aware of ecosystems and how they’ll rebalance. In fact, a hands off approach is about the only way to let it happen. BUT once again, in my opinion.. and it could be wrong. It looks like we’ve really dumped a lot on her at once this time. The original point of the thread was just to see if other areas were as jacked up as here, not to fear monger. Although you did catch me in a moment of “hand wringing” weakness a few posts back. I’m a wu-wei-let-it-roll kind of guy. And frankly all we can do at this point is watch it happen anyway, ain’t no one controlling the rain.... that would be a different thread

 

[GGB]

Oh also forgot to answer your question @PABonsai if every tree species in my forest died but one... that’s a big question. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for this scenario and not say it would get devoured by the pests and fungi that ran out of their previous host trees. We’ll just say they couldn’t adapt. So forests would all turn into grasslands with a couple trees, so some definite flora and fauna losses. Eventually that one species of tree would begin the forest over again, assuming it’s a species that readily germinated in full sun and somewhat barren conditions. And didn’t died from the sudden exposure to the elements when the rest of the forest died. I’m thinking something like pinus Virginiana or juniperus virginiana in this scenario, those guys could do the trick. But eventually just like you said nature would settle back into a balance and insects and fungi would need something to eat and there would be one option, not to mention like you said... we’re constantly introducing new pests we have no natural defenses for. Eventually that last tree species would be susceptible to something and that would destroy the forest quickly and completely. Because once again, just like you said. Trees are supposed to die. Supposed to be killed off when they are weak and supposed to feed insects. The strength of a forest is it’s ability to lose parts or species and fill those in with better suited species. The war never stops so theoretically.. at some point that line species would die. Every time there’s an extinction we lose a piece of resiliency. Not sure if I’m your example the other species were extinct or just temporarily dead. That would make a big difference too

 

[GGB]

Either way I’m drinking beer and stomping lantern flies.

It is funny to hear you say that, last year I didn’t bother killing any because I was going to let nature do her thing. But I changed my mind this year

 

[PABonsai]

@PABonsai I mostly do agree with what you said. I’m also aware that we have more forests now than 100 years ago. But 100 years ago we cut the forests down, now they’re just dying off beyond our control.
I keep things fairly brief on here but I went to school for environmental science. I’m fully aware of ecosystems and how they’ll rebalance. In fact, a hands off approach is about the only way to let it happen. BUT once again, in my opinion.. and it could be wrong. It looks like we’ve really dumped a lot on her at once this time. The original point of the thread was just to see if other areas were as jacked up as here, not to fear monger. Although you did catch me in a moment of “hand wringing” weakness a few posts back. I’m a wu-wei-let-it-roll kind of guy. And frankly all we can do at this point is watch it happen anyway, ain’t no one controlling the rain.... that would be a different thread

For the record it really is ridiculous how many foreign species we introduce in our own back yards. Like the ongoing pythons in the Everglades saga and those carp in the rivers. We aren't very bright.

 

[rockm]

So are these funguses new? Did sudden oak death just recently blip into existence? Is the emerald ash borer an evolutionary skip that happened just these past few years?

Im pretty sure all these fungii, diseases, and insects existed before we were all here, and there are still oaks out there, still ash trees, still everything..

You need these diseases to kill off some species to make room for others which in turn die off and make room for others... so on and so forth.

I feel like we dont have to protect nature from itself... just from us interfering with the natural tendencies and cycles of the planet and these ecosystems.

Um, Sudden Oak Death, emerald ash borer, Dutch Elm Disease, Chestnut blight are the direct result of man's interference. All were introduced from other places through man's activities...

You don't know what you lost if you've never seen it. The death of an entire species because of an artificially introduced disease is NOT "natural" selection. American chestnut trees were once the major dominant forest trees in the Eastern U.S. They were huge, common and part of the everyday landscape...Their corpses were once common after the blight. Not so much now. The death of these giants--ash trees as well--aren't some kind of evolutional skip (which takes hundreds or thousands of years, not a decade).

Chestnut corpse--stand of chestnut in the Appalachians

 

[rockm]

I know this will get me completely pilloried but I generally don't buy into the concept that nature needs us to baby and coddle it. While I think everyone agrees it's not good practice to kill it or help it's murder along, the simple fact is that nature contains an infinite amount of actions and reactions. A fungus or pest killing off a species is part of that ongoing struggle of life. It has happened for millions of years and will for millions more.

Human intervention is actually the cause of many of our forests' problems. We have had governments arrogantly and incorrectly thinking for over 100 years that, if they can just preserve every organism in a certain forest, like it's some nature diorama then everything will work out. But it's this human intervention that disallows the change and renewal of forests that nature needs. Nature never stands still, as much as we delude ourselves into thinking it should. We need to get over this idea that we are The God of nature and we can control it all. Don't even bother with the stupid attacks claiming I promote pollution or importing invasive species. That's utterly false. The point is, if every tre species dies in your forest but one, why is that a problem? I don't think anyone could articulate why that would be a problem other than their PERCEPTION that it is a problem. You can argue that the forest is out of balance. Ok, once nature is unbalanced then the pendulum will swing. Predator/prey populations are never static, and neither are disease/host relationships. Imbalances in nature are perpetual, it is just the nature of the imbalance that changes. Heck, nevermind the fact that every 50 years we find out in most fields of science that our previous "knowledge" was completely wrong. Natural processes chase dynamic equilibrium, not static equilibrium. Stop hand wringing, protect the trees you own and watch nature do it's thing. We have more forest in the US than we did 100 years ago and to hear you folks talk it seems you think we're going to end up with nothing but desert in 3 years. Stop living in this perpetual fear that our society has created. Just enjoy nature, she can take care of herself. She doesn't need us to "fix" what we often ignorantly perceive as "problems". Now go calm down, have a beer and smash some spotted lantern flies.

No nature doesn't need to be "coddled" whatever the F that means. This is blind stupid reasoning. You've confused conservative practices with invasive diseases. they are hardly the same thing...Every tree dying in a forest isn't a problem? That's not an issue of perception for God's sake. It is a real life issue as economies depend on forests and land...introduced diseases brought over in bulk freight, airplanes and international trade are NOT "natural selection." You'd probably change your tune if one of those diseases wiped out he U.S.' corn crop...Ask the Irish about what happens when an introduced disease does that kind of thing...

 

[PABonsai]

No nature doesn't need to be "coddled" whatever the F that means. This is blind stupid reasoning. You've confused conservative practices with invasive diseases. they are hardly the same thing...Every tree dying in a forest isn't a problem? That's not an issue of perception for God's sake. It is a real life issue as economies depend on forests and land...introduced diseases brought over in bulk freight, airplanes and international trade are NOT "natural selection." You'd probably change your tune if one of those diseases wiped out he U.S.' corn crop...Ask the Irish about what happens when an introduced disease does that kind of thing...

You completely missed the point. I guess you're one of those that thinks the end is nigh and nature can't adapt. You showed it right there in your photos. Old chestnuts that were replaced by other species. Nature fills the holes by itself. Humans just become too attached to individual species. More species have died in the history of the earth than exist right now. I haven't confused anything. Invasive species will be dealt with by adaptation. It might not be pretty and it won't be as fast as humans prefer, but earth doesn't work on the human timescale.

Except that I was never referring to extinction itself. If you'd read what I said I said "a forest" not "all forests". Sorry but you're wrong if you think conservation as humans (at least previously) practice it has not fouled up many an environment that they set out to "preserve".

By the way the Irish potato famine is an interesting point to bring up. Did the Irish potato famine lead to total extinction of potatoes? We both know the answer to that.

 

[PABonsai]

Either way I’m drinking beer and stomping lantern flies.

It is funny to hear you say that, last year I didn’t bother killing any because I was going to let nature do her thing. But I changed my mind this year

I don't disagree with fighting invasive species. My point more or less related to your concern with the disease stuff. We do have a responsibility to fight invasive species till nature responds. But she will respond nonetheless. My thought though related to the worry over the concept of "how do we stop this fungus". To that I say, well you don't. You let nature do its thing. anyway. I don't feel like having multi day arguments. We agree more than we disagree.

 

[PABonsai]

No nature doesn't need to be "coddled" whatever the F that means. This is blind stupid reasoning. You've confused conservative practices with invasive diseases. they are hardly the same thing...Every tree dying in a forest isn't a problem? That's not an issue of perception for God's sake. It is a real life issue as economies depend on forests and land...introduced diseases brought over in bulk freight, airplanes and international trade are NOT "natural selection." You'd probably change your tune if one of those diseases wiped out he U.S.' corn crop...Ask the Irish about what happens when an introduced disease does that kind of thing...

So when the Spaniards brought disease and wiped out the Aztecs, did it obliterate 100% of humans on the continent forever? Or did some not die and adapt to the disease just like the Spaniards that brought them? Did bubonic plague make humans extinct in Europe? My gosh with all of this invasive disease our planet must be desolate.

Arguing about economies means nothing. Most of the forests you see everyday aren't part of "the economy" and, just like nature, economies adapt. Baseball bats are traditionally Ash. Have Ash reductions made baseball bats scarce? I see dozens every time I turn on a baseball game. no one is arguing that invasive species are good. Sure, Weyerhaeuser probably doesn't want to deal with an infection in their stands, but that's one small data point in a vast abyss of data. Weyerhaeuser isn't stopping "the economy" if they do have an issue.

Again to address your argument. Do you think wiping out a large chunk of the US corn crop means extinction of corn in the US?

My whole point was that contrary to your view it won't lead to total extinction. It's just that humans like you don't have the patience and feel the need to "fix".

 

[rockm]

You completely missed the point. I guess you're one of those that thinks the end is nigh and nature can't adapt. You showed it right there in your photos. Old chestnuts that were replaced by other species. Nature fills the holes by itself. Humans just become too attached to individual species. More species have died in the history of the earth than exist right now. I haven't confused anything. Invasive species will be dealt with by adaptation. It might not be pretty and it won't be as fast as humans prefer, but earth doesn't work on the human timescale.

Except that I was never referring to extinction itself. If you'd read what I said I said "a forest" not "all forests". Sorry but you're wrong if you think conservation as humans (at least previously) practice it has not fouled up many an environment that they set out to "preserve".

By the way the Irish potato famine is an interesting point to bring up. Did the Irish potato famine lead to total extinction of potatoes? We both know the answer to that.

So when the Spaniards brought disease and wiped out the Aztecs, did it obliterate 100% of humans on the continent forever? Or did some not die and adapt to the disease just like the Spaniards that brought them? Did bubonic plague make humans extinct in Europe? My gosh with all of this invasive disease our planet must be desolate.

Arguing about economies means nothing. Most of the forests you see everyday aren't part of "the economy" and, just like nature, economies adapt. Baseball bats are traditionally Ash. Have Ash reductions made baseball bats scarce? I see dozens every time I turn on a baseball game. no one is arguing that invasive species are good. Sure, Weyerhaeuser probably doesn't want to deal with an infection in their stands, but that's one small data point in a vast abyss of data. Weyerhaeuser isn't stopping "the economy" if they do have an issue.

Again to address your argument. Do you think wiping out a large chunk of the US corn crop means extinction of corn in the US?

My whole point was that contrary to your view it won't lead to total extinction. It's just that humans like you don't have the patience and feel the need to "fix".

Lord...

You completely missed the point. I guess you're one of those that thinks the end is nigh and nature can't adapt. You showed it right there in your photos. Old chestnuts that were replaced by other species. Nature fills the holes by itself. Humans just become too attached to individual species. More species have died in the history of the earth than exist right now. I haven't confused anything. Invasive species will be dealt with by adaptation. It might not be pretty and it won't be as fast as humans prefer, but earth doesn't work on the human timescale.

Except that I was never referring to extinction itself. If you'd read what I said I said "a forest" not "all forests". Sorry but you're wrong if you think conservation as humans (at least previously) practice it has not fouled up many an environment that they set out to "preserve".

By the way the Irish potato famine is an interesting point to bring up. Did the Irish potato famine lead to total extinction of potatoes? We both know the answer to that.

No potatoes aren't extinct, but a million Irishmen are. Not pretty, but hey, they're just Irish and probably vote democrat...

 

[GGB]

@PABonsai not an argument at all just a response. You’re right we do agree a lot more than disagree.
It’s be a cold day in hell before I had an internet fight with someone. Especially a bonsai enthusiast from Pennsylvania. We’re buds as far as I’m concerned. And , we’ll probably meet some day wether we realize or not

 

[Orion_metalhead]

Um, Sudden Oak Death, emerald ash borer, Dutch Elm Disease, Chestnut blight are the direct result of man's interference. All were introduced from other places through man's activities...

You don't know what you lost if you've never seen it. The death of an entire species because of an artificially introduced disease is NOT "natural" selection. American chestnut trees were once the major dominant forest trees in the Eastern U.S. They were huge, common and part of the everyday landscape...Their corpses were once common after the blight. Not so much now. The death of these giants--ash trees as well--aren't some kind of evolutional skip (which takes hundreds or thousands of years, not a decade).

Chestnut corpse--stand of chestnut in the AppalachiansView attachment 261926View attachment 261927

Thank you for the response with some backstory and information.

I entirely agree with the question posited towards the end of your post which I quoted. That specifically is what I am talking about when i talked about our responsibility.

My post was not meant to be anything other than my partly-darwinist perspective on most matters of environmenal changes. Do not confuse this with climate change denial, of which I don't count myself nor share similar views.

Anyway, if you could share some scholarly research on the origins of these diseases, id love to read them.

 

[KillerButts]

Have some popcorn

 

[rockm]

Anyway, if you could share some scholarly research on the origins of these diseases, id love to read them.

Chestnut blight S.E. Asian in orgin

Chestnut blight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sudden Oak Death in Texas --European orgin 1990's

https://www.texasinvasives.org/resources/publications/03_SOD_TFA.pdf

dogwood anthracnose--which has devastated native dogwoods in the Appalachians beginning in the 1970's --origin unknown, but DNA shows it was introduced, not native. Imports of Asian dogwood (Kousa) are primary suspects--

Dogwood Anthracnose – Invasive Species

The list goes on Dutch Elm disease is pretty much self explanatory

all of the above have resulted in steep, sharp decline of native species.

 

[Sansui]

Lord...

No potatoes aren't extinct, but a million Irishmen are. Not pretty, but hey, they're just Irish and probably vote democrat...

Every man is sociable until a cow invades his garden.

 

[PABonsai]

Lord...

No potatoes aren't extinct, but a million Irishmen are. Not pretty, but hey, they're just Irish and probably vote democrat...

Good job. You've spent days arguing that invasive species are temporarily detrimental to local environs, when literally no one had argued against that point with you. Have any of those diseases successfully made any of those trees extinct? Chestnut blight is the closest and yet in American chestnuts the roots remain in complete health. So there is potential for adapting a resistance. You've glossed over all the examples of nature fixing imbalances and overcoming severe population declines and provided nothing to prove that if one species disappears from a particular location that nature will just fly into a chaotic death spiral. Remember what Ian Malcom said in Jurassic Park...."Life finds a way."

 

[PABonsai]

Instead you've ignored the actual words I wrote and created a couple straw men. You have yet to prove that-- for example-- if eastern white pine disappeared from Maryland tomorrow that all the forests of Maryland would turn into desolate deserts. If you had read what I actually wrote you'd understand that my original argument was that, no that sort of thing wouldn't happen. What would happen is some other species would flourish in its place and the forests would move on. Instead you've taken this off into some weird tangent arguing that since potato blight killed a bunch of people potato blight is bad. No one argued that chestnut blight didn't kill a lot of chestnuts. The whole point is that in spite of the chestnuts disappearing we still have millions of acres of forest, because something else filled the void. You haven't argued against that point at all, in fact you haven't even attempted it. Yet here you are trying to belittle me. If you're going to belittle me at least put together a coherent thought that counters what I actually said.

 

[rockm]

Good job. You've spent days arguing that invasive species are temporarily detrimental to local envUm, irons, when literally no one had argued against that point with you. Have any of those diseases successfully made any of those trees extinct? Chestnut blight is the closest and yet in American chestnuts the roots remain in complete health. So there is potential for adapting a resistance. You've glossed over all the examples of nature fixing imbalances and overcoming severe population declines and provided nothing to prove that if one species disappears from a particular location that nature will just fly into a chaotic death spiral. Remember what Ian Malcom said in Jurassic Park...."Life finds a way."

Um, the resistant strain of chestnut is being refined by humans. W

Instead you've ignored the actual words I wrote and created a couple straw men. You have yet to prove that-- for example-- if eastern white pine disappeared from Maryland tomorrow that all the forests of Maryland would turn into desolate deserts. If you had read what I actually wrote you'd understand that my original argument was that, no that sort of thing wouldn't happen. What would happen is some other species would flourish in its place and the forests would move on. Instead you've taken this off into some weird tangent arguing that since potato blight killed a bunch of people potato blight is bad. No one argued that chestnut blight didn't kill a lot of chestnuts. The whole point is that in spite of the chestnuts disappearing we still have millions of acres of forest, because something else filled the void. You haven't argued against that point at all, in fact you haven't even attempted it. Yet here you are trying to belittle me. If you're going to belittle me at least put together a coherent thought that counters what I actually said.

You an anti-vaxxer?

 

[PABonsai]

Um, the resistant strain of chestnut is being refined by humans. W

I never mentioned human attempts a hybridization. Chestnut Blight does not damage the roots and therefore, given enough time a chestnut root system could theoretically send up a shoot that is resistant to the blight and not killed. All it would take is one shoot that has developed a resistance. And according to one of those pages you sent they estimate 6 million living root systems in NY alone. If one of those somehow hardens itself against the blight that has nothing to do with humans. Organisms develop defenses against other organisms all the time.

This pretty much goes back to the very foundation of my argument. That it'll eventually happen it's just humans like you don't have the patience. Then what happens when a human developed hybrid exhibits some other unexpected trait that causes some other unintended consequence?

 

[rockm]

I never mentioned human attempts a hybridization. Chestnut Blight does not damage the roots and therefore, given enough time a chestnut root system could theoretically send up a shoot that is resistant to the blight and not killed. All it would take is one shoot that has developed a resistance. And according to one of those pages you sent they estimate 6 million living root systems in NY alone. If one of those somehow hardens itself against the blight that has nothing to do with humans. Organisms develop defenses against other organisms all the time.

This pretty much goes back to the very foundation of my argument. That it'll eventually happen it's just humans like you don't have the patience. Then what happens when a human developed hybrid exhibits some other unexpected trait that causes some other unintended consequence?

Humans like me...hmmm.