Saturday, March 12, 2011
Trees have too few predators.
Trees have too few predators.
Trees are large living things that basically do not have predators, but only parasites and diseases. With the exception of man.
They are really the dinosaurs of ecology.
There are a few species that will take out small trees, such as elephants. And a few specialised grazers, such as giraffes.
Given how trees dominate, with a wide range of weapons, ( namely shade, herbicide, insecticide) , it is surprising that more things don't complain!
Man is the only predator, taking advantage of structural supplies that can be roughly shaped, and energy supplies that can be stored.
But what if these structural and energy elements had better competition? What would happen? Well we already know. Forestry is a declining industry, despite ecological biases.
Timber is basically too variable and unstable a finished product for modern construction. Wood is hard work as an energy provider, despite aesthetic pluses.
Forestry is very capital intensive, needing power and scale to be viable.
Making use of smaller plants, combined with reforming technology ( composites, chipping, etc) is probably much more practical and economic proposition.
So maybe trees will loose their only predator, over much of their domain, and be seen as the weedy bully that they intrinsically are.
Woods will be replaced by fields of harvested saplings or modified grasses, for supply of energy and cheap composite fillers. A move away from batch processing to continuous processes will also be beneficial.
Trees will go the way of the dinosaur, while keeping some specimens and bonsai. Diversity will be the only argument for them.
Martin
Trees are large living things that basically do not have predators, but only parasites and diseases. With the exception of man.
They are really the dinosaurs of ecology.
There are a few species that will take out small trees, such as elephants. And a few specialised grazers, such as giraffes.
Given how trees dominate, with a wide range of weapons, ( namely shade, herbicide, insecticide) , it is surprising that more things don't complain!
Man is the only predator, taking advantage of structural supplies that can be roughly shaped, and energy supplies that can be stored.
But what if these structural and energy elements had better competition? What would happen? Well we already know. Forestry is a declining industry, despite ecological biases.
Timber is basically too variable and unstable a finished product for modern construction. Wood is hard work as an energy provider, despite aesthetic pluses.
Forestry is very capital intensive, needing power and scale to be viable.
Making use of smaller plants, combined with reforming technology ( composites, chipping, etc) is probably much more practical and economic proposition.
So maybe trees will loose their only predator, over much of their domain, and be seen as the weedy bully that they intrinsically are.
Woods will be replaced by fields of harvested saplings or modified grasses, for supply of energy and cheap composite fillers. A move away from batch processing to continuous processes will also be beneficial.
Trees will go the way of the dinosaur, while keeping some specimens and bonsai. Diversity will be the only argument for them.
Martin
