Prehistoric Garbage Piles Created "Tree Islands"

sciencehabit writes "Piles of garbage left by humans thousands of years ago may have helped form 'tree islands' in the Florida Everglades--patches of relatively high and dry ground that rise from the wetlands. They stand between 1 and 2 meters higher than the surrounding landscape, can cover 100 acres or more, and host two to three times the number of species living in the surrounding marsh. Besides providing habitat for innumerable birds, the islands offer refuge for animals such as alligators and the Florida panther during flood season. The trash piles—a mix of discarded food, charcoal, shell tools, and broken pottery—would have been slightly higher and drier than the surrounding marsh, offering a foothold for trees, shrubs, and other vegetation."

Re:Very misleading

[d1r3lnd]

It's not that misleading - it was trash. And while you seem to be getting awfully worked up about the hypothetical political pull of this article, I'd like to note that environmental stressors (including oil, and, yes, even nuclear reactors) have affected the Earth long before our species even existed, and will no doubt continue to do so well after we're gone.

I'm sorry, what I meant to say is that you're a special snowflake and your mere existence will leave an indelible mark on our world.

Oh, the hubris of mankind.

Re:Very misleading

[LordLucless]

So because some people are stupid, scientific articles should be forbidden from using totally appropriate and correct terminology (here's a hint: broken pottery and shells are prehistoric garbage). Way to retard forward progress buddy!

I guess we should avoid master-slave hardware paradigms, or the term blackboard due to racial sensitivity too, huh? We need to tailor all our language to appease the ignorant, after all.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Psychotria]

How do we know that the garbage didn't collect because the land was drier so people lived there?

Yes, well... there are a few obvious things to look at

a) Humans do not generally live on top of their rubbish dumps; if they did they'd have to continually rebuild their homes on top of the accumulated rubbish. While not completely implausible, the evidence would still be there if this is the course of action the people took
b) The important thing is not the current height of the "islands" but the height of the islands minus the accumulated rubble/rubbish

Do you think that the people writing the study didn't consider these two items that I just pulled off the top of my head? I'm sure if they didn't then their peers would have throughout the review process.

The "correlation is not causation" argument is valid, but I tend to think it's overused; it's only really valid if you read the original paper and the limitations, assumptions and methodology within.

Re:This one again.

[demonlapin]

Correspondingly, there is a real ignorance of why polystyrene foam was originally considered such an environmental bugbear - after all, we're surrounded by the stuff; it's not as though a landfill full of foam would be likely to contaminate groundwater or hurt anyone (inks/dyes aside). The real reason? It was originally blown with nonflammable, nontoxic, non-oxidizing CFCs. "Styrofoam is bad" has been absorbed, but the disappearance of the original reason why has been ignored.

Re:This one again.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

My point is not about what IS done, but what COULD be done

Well, we COULD all have horses painted pink & use them to ride around collecting rubbish & the horses carefully lick clean each piece prior to sending to the recycle centre, but in the real world, new polystyrene is so cheap, that the cost of recycling is simply not worth it.