Hacker News Reader

Comment by wnevets | Hacker News Reader

> potential to be invasive.

Is that a real concern when it comes to trees?

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

Do you know of other species that have similar issues as Eucalyptus?

America's favorite (/s) the Bradford Pear. It is invasive and will choke/push out other species.

https://extension.umd.edu/resource/bradford-pear

Amur Honeysuckle, though its sort of more of a shrub.

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.

It also can absolutely grow to tree size, and I’ve found areas with a lot of buckthorn have significantly more mosquitoes. Presumably they have more cover so aren’t as likely to be eaten.

If I were a billionaire I’d fund a secret program to create a disease to wipe out buckthorn. I hate what it’s done to Minnesota’s forests.

Tree of Heaven is extremely difficult to eradicate, and has spread throughout Boulder over the last few years.

https://arapahoe.extension.colostate.edu/2021/09/05/tree-fro...

it’s not a tree but kudzu is a pretty famous example. it was imported from japan (i believe —may be mistaken on that point) into the American Deep South for erosion control, it quickly grew in the warm, wet environs and now literally smothers nearly all native vegetation. Its incredibly invasive and difficult to eradicate.

Exact same story on the west coast with iceplant: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Dont-Plant-Me/Ic.... It dominates the Californian coastline now and probably always will.

The North American Black Locust tree, a continental native tree, of the legume family, is considered invasive within North America, in New York and Connecticut and Massachusetts and the rest of New England, mid-west prairie areas, and the west of the continent.

Its original range, before European arrival, is believed to be in Appalachian Mountains, Pennsylvania to Georgia, and the Ozarks.

  It has been used as a pioneer species to restore treeless land in other continents, including Europe, Asia and Africa and Australia. Spain has used them to restart forest in desertified areas, for example.

- Black Locust (Robinia_pseudoacacia) -- Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinia_pseudoacacia

- Black Locust -- New York PRISM https://www.wnyprism.org/invasive_species/black-locust/

- Black Locust -- Massachusetts Audubon Society https://www.massaudubon.org/learn/nature-wildlife/invasive-p...

- Rethinking Black Locust -- by Maureen Sundberg April 15, 2019 Ecological Lanscape Alliance https://www.ecolandscaping.org/04/landscape-challenges/invas...

Note that reforestation up here is a different game than in places like California (read: "warmer locations more amicable to life"). Species that survive here mostly already existed and trees grow very, very slowly. For the most part, we'll welcome anything that will survive, and turns out (big surprise) that our existing species are the best at surviving here. An exception (as in, a newly introduced potentially invasive species) is the Californian Poplar, which was imported in the 40s, but that isn't really used much for reforestation anymore.

There are notable examples of invasive species in the non-tree category though, the Lupine probably being the most controversial. It's been used to reclaim and create soil in sandy areas and in only a few decades since being imported, the blue of the flowering lupine absolutely dominates some areas. I think it's pretty, but it's aggressive as all hell.

Good example. Eucalyptus is bad

Pinus is worse

I've been watching way too much Beavis and Butthead.

> The eucalyptus trees they imported from Australia have had the terrible affect of making wildfires in California even worse.

I watched the eucalyptus stands burning in the Oakland Hills fire. They go up like torches. I've never understood the rationale for keeping them. Owls really like them though.

> Owls really like them though.

There's your rationale. Owls are cool.

Much as I dislike Eucalyptus trees, every owl calling from a Eucalyptus is a vote to keep them.

I don't think there's much of a rationale; nobody I knew in CA liked eucalyptus trees, they just are everywhere. I had heard they wanted to make railroad ties from them.

Correct on the railroad ties. Well until they realised how long they take to grow properly so it didnt work out.

https://www.independent.com/2011/01/15/how-eucalyptus-came-c...

I really, I mean really, really like the slender ones with the almost white bark, and the limbs that branch off with the skin-like wrinkles on their undersides. The trunks and lower limbs remind me of the human form. And I like the broccoli-like crests of leaves, that while poor at providing shade, are just so doggone stylish.

There are other Eucalyptus trees that are massive and perhaps less attractive, that I still find awe inspiring because of their massive size.

I did not know that they were such a problem in wildfires, despite being born in and living nearly the whole of my life in Southern California. You learn something every day.

Monarch butterflies in California need eucalyptus trees for their winter roost

https://milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in-ca...

How, I mean, eucalyptus is not native to California? Did they recently adapt?

It does say in the article that 20% nest in the pine and 16% in cypress trees.

> His theory is that the agricultural practices of early settlers, which cleared trees, created a population explosion of the milkweed that is the host plant of monarchs. More milkweeds resulted in more monarchs and monarchs began to migrate in response to population pressure, he believes.

So it sounds like it was all pine in that area, deforestation created an environment for monarchs, and they moved in. Monarchs are not native to the area, so I'm not sure that they can be used as a defence to keep all the eucalyptus.

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.

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.

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.

According to the internet the Japanese knotweed is not a tree, its a buckwheat. [1]

[1] https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/

There is also the Ailanthus altissima, which also is from Asia/Japan.

I refuse to believe that if I can't make pancakes out of it.

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.

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.

One more example, the Brazilian Pepper:

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.

Maybe ecosystems are always being disrupted?

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

And then maybe follow it up with Jared Diamond:

• 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.

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?

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.

Bad faith? You are asking whether my comment was intended to deceive? No, it was not. It was lazy, and nothing more than that.

No, you misunderstand... by "bad faith" I meant that your original comment was not intended as an earnest, respectful, positive contribution.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, under the section "In Comments" (halfway down)...

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

...

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

...

> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

Also, honestly, Jared Diamond? you can do so much better than that.

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!

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.

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.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com