One of the World's Largest Organisms is Shrinking (sciencemag.org) 108
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Pando aspen grove, located in central Utah, is the largest organism on the planet by weight. From the surface, it may look like a forest that spans more than 100 U.S. football fields, but each tree shares the exact same DNA and is connected to its clonal brethren through an elaborate underground root system. Although not quite as large in terms of area as the massive Armillaria gallica fungus in Michigan, Pando is much heavier, weighing in at more than 6 million kilograms. Now, researchers say, the grove is in danger, being slowly eaten away by mule deer and other herbivores -- and putting the fate of its ecosystem in jeopardy. "This is a really unusual habitat type," says Luke Painter, an ecologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis who was not involved with the research. "A lot of animals depend on it."
[...] Scientists first noticed the Pando shrinking in the late '90s. They suspected elk, cattle, and most prominently deer were eating the new shoots, so in the new study Rogers and colleagues divided the forest into three experimental groups. One section was completely unfenced, allowing animals to forage freely on the baby aspen. A second section was fenced and left alone. And a third section was fenced and then treated in some places with strategies to spur aspen growth, such as shrub removal and controlled burning; in other places it was left untreated. The results were surprising: Simply keeping the deer out was enough to allow the grove to successfully recover, the team reports today in PLOS ONE. Even in the fenced-off plots where there was no burning or shrub removal, young trees were thriving.
[...] Scientists first noticed the Pando shrinking in the late '90s. They suspected elk, cattle, and most prominently deer were eating the new shoots, so in the new study Rogers and colleagues divided the forest into three experimental groups. One section was completely unfenced, allowing animals to forage freely on the baby aspen. A second section was fenced and left alone. And a third section was fenced and then treated in some places with strategies to spur aspen growth, such as shrub removal and controlled burning; in other places it was left untreated. The results were surprising: Simply keeping the deer out was enough to allow the grove to successfully recover, the team reports today in PLOS ONE. Even in the fenced-off plots where there was no burning or shrub removal, young trees were thriving.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Open Season (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is a lack of apex predators. The deer population has expanded past a sustainable level.
In the past decade, biologists have recorded strong rebounds in the population of trout in Wyoming rivers, less sediment in the water, and higher oxygen levels. Why? Wolves. When the wolves came back to Yellowstone, the behavior of the deer and elk changed. They spend more time on higher ground, and along ridge lines where they are safer from ambush, and much less time browsing in stream beds where they destroy vegetation and stir up sediment. When the apex predators returned, they had a dramatic effect on the entire ecosystem.
A reintroduction of wolves to central Utah would reduce the deer population, but also change their behavior. Another option would be to use biotechnology to bring back the American lion [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
No, there are plenty of apex predators. Humans ARE apex predators. Alas, there are also too many laws limiting the amount of predation we're allowed to do. Ban on hunting in the area? Check. Too many deer eating whatever they like? Check....
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the apex predator that you mention, humans, are restricted from hunting in the grove because human homes are too close.
Year-round bow season. Problem solved.
Sample bias (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, as a US citizen we are pretty fat...
You missed a bit part of the GP in your haste (Score:4, Insightful)
Reintroduction of wolves in a number of places, notably, as the GP mentioned, Yellowstone, changes the behavior of prey animals and other members of the ecosystem. Humans just culling deer during hunting season doesnt do that.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is a lack of apex predators.
We are the apex predators. We used to hunt deer. Now we don't nearly as much. We should hunt and eat deer again.
Re:Open Season (Score:4, Funny)
We are the apex predators. We used to hunt deer. Now we don't nearly as much. We should hunt and eat deer again.
Barefoot, with spears.
Re: (Score:2)
We are the apex predators. We used to hunt deer. Now we don't nearly as much. We should hunt and eat deer again.
Barefoot, with spears.
Spears are for wimps. Real men just use rocks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
As a kid, I was friends with a true Indian Family from the wilds of the midwest.
I knew more about how to live off the land than I could ever imagine, learned
some real weird shit that to this day, I never worry about camping, I just know
how to do things.
about deer:
I learned how to deer tap. I never had the courage to try that with a bear.
deer tapping is the art of stalking a deer in fresh wood in the autumn while
they are rutting and mad as heck. the goal is simple, slap one in the rump
and run for your life a
Re: (Score:3)
The numbers are ridiculous even in the metro area. They had to start culling numbers.
In California, the overpopulation of mule deer causes serious environmental destruction, erosion from over grazing, and even the near extinction of some tree species (they eat the seedlings). But every proposal to cull the deer is stopped by urban voters who think they are "saving Bambi's mother".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wolves are gone, and we don't want them back.
Wanting wolves back, is like the antivax group thinking not vaxing is safe. The amount of damage they will do from live stock to the safety of people.
I can't stat e this enough; Wolves and humans do not mix! Do you think animals that can take down things bigger than us like elk and moose wont cause problems for us? I'm not just talking about livestock, or pets, but also kids, even adults! There is a reason why man purposely removed wolves.
Let man be the apex pre
Re: (Score:2)
While some of you will look at me like I am crazy, a simple yet observable fact can be noted
( and I believe already documented in Yosemite ). Before the wolves introduction, river banks
and the plains that lead up to them were lacking in tree growth. Once the wolves were established,
grazing animals had to look for water in other locations or drink quickly from the past location.
Wolves hunt in the grazing areas.
This, of course, needs to be revalidated since it's been at least 10 years since I've paid any
atten
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"In 2008, the American lion was estimated to weigh up to 420 kg (930 lb)." That is a truly terrifying animal considering how dangerous a cougar is and according to Wikipedia cougars max out around 220 kg. The minimum weight estimated for an adult American lion is 175 kg.
A predatory cat the size of the modern grizzly bear is the stuff of nightmares.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Big, Yummy Rodents.
Re:Open Season (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
CWD has been found in 6 hunting units and less then 100 deer total in Utah so far. CWD has no reported cases of jumping the species barrier. You can get your deer tested for $25 and if you are hunting a unit that has had confirmed CWD cases you are asked to get the deer tested and I believe they wave the fees. I don't believe most Utah hunters have even heard of CWD at this point and I know no one who has any problem touching or eating deer because of it.
Re: Open Season (Score:3, Insightful)
and I know no one who has any problem touching or eating deer because of it.
You will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So far studies have not shown it to be transmittable to humans. But states with it usually have a way to get your animal tested.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or just leave nature the fuck alone. The deer have more a right to the grove than humans do.
Why would the deer have more of a right than humans? Humans are part of the ecosystem too. Humans don't live outside the ecosystem, we are as much a part of the ecosystem as the deer. If we assume that humans did live outside of the ecosystem then what does that mean for us? That we cannot take some of the deer for our food? Or eat the fruit from trees like the deer?
Peopel are animals too!!
Definition of suprise? (Score:2)
*results show deer eating really was the cause*
Scientists: WE ARE SO SURPRISED THAT WE WERE RIGHT!
Why was that suprising?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Definition of suprise? (Score:2)
Wow, the courage you have to declare "it's so obvious" after something is researched and concluded is commendable. If only we all had your 20/20 hindsight. You're very smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Professional computer modeler posting.
Models prove nothing, any competent modeler can get the model to tell him what he wants to hear. That's part of the definition of 'competent modeler'.
Where models are used in high stakes negotiations, it's an adversarial process. We know how to lie with a model, we go through the datasets with jaundiced eyes. Always find something.
Validate the model by having someone that disagrees with you go through the details. Then finally validate with backcasting, you need
Let's be fair about this, people (Score:4, Funny)
Michael Moore is losing pounds because he hasn't had a hit movie in a while, that's all. This has no connection with global wa--
Oh, wait!
Re: (Score:2)
Climate Change Deer!
See how easy it is to shoehorn in "Climate Change" in to every discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
Because in nut-land there can only be one answer to all situations everywhere in the world.
Times are changing (Score:1)
Good for her (Score:1)
Glad to hear OP's mom finally went on that diet
Poor Bambi is eating Ferngully (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How about less interference, and let nature come to an equilibrium?
Re: (Score:2)
It is reaching its own equilibrium, which ends with the aspen grove being eaten away. That's the problem. A new equilibrium is needed.
With the lack of apex predators, there are more deer here now that there was 500 years ago. But hunting is evil and cruel. It is much better to let Bambi over-graze until the habitat is destroyed. Dying of disease, starvation, and overpopulation is so much more humane than a bullet...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with you, but accidentally modded "funny" when i meant "underrated". Commenting to remove the mod. MODS, FIX MY MISTAKE!
Re: (Score:2)
It is reaching its own equilibrium, which ends with the aspen grove being eaten away.
That's not given. Deer are relatively short-lived, and as they reduce their food source, their population will dwindle. Once it has reached a sufficiently small size, it is not going to be worth it for the remaining deer to trek there compared to finding larger food sources.
The aspen might end up as significantly smaller, but still survive.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there is food, the deer will continue to breed and grow. I live in Colorado. The elk at Rocky Mountain National Park are so numerous that they are destroying the habitat there...
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there is food, the deer will continue to breed and grow. I live in Colorado. The elk at Rocky Mountain National Park are so numerous that they are destroying the habitat there...
Again, you're looking at the short term process, not the future. As the amount of food goes down because of herbivores, the number of herbivores will go down too, and those left will look for easier sources of food. What's left of the habitat may be much less than what once were, but it is exceedingly rare that any wild species manage to grace anything to extinction. That there are too many deer is just another way of saying there is too much food. An equilibrium will be reached; it's how nature works w
Too many herbivores? (Score:1)
Sounds like a problem for wolves. Did they get rid of the wolves?
Time for wolves (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to reintroduce some wolves to the area. They were having similar issues in Yellowstone National Park. Once wolves were brought back into the park, the deer stopped browsing on the trees, causing the forests to regrow, bringing back bird habitat and so forth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, was thinking the exact same thing. Amazing how an ecosystem needs all or most of its parts to work right! I hope they do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wolves will also kill and eat small humans.
Not if they're wearing a red hood.
Way easy fix (Score:1)
Ego much? (Score:2)
So, let's get this straight. The biggest/heaviest/oldest/whatever massively successful life-form. . .needs our help.
Yeah, right.
Maybe, just maybe, like everything else, it too has cycles of growth and destruction.
Trees are weird.
The tree in your backyard can take ten years to die, and another ten to fall over.
There are species of trees that benefit from forest fires -- yup, fire-retardant wood.
Trees are probably the largest life-forms on the planet.
The smallest seeds of any plant come from trees -- I think
so after all we do need...the wall? (Score:2)
And let's elk and deer pay for it!
For those of you unfamiliar with American football (Score:4, Funny)
For those of you unfamiliar with American football, 100 U.S. football fields is about 2.75 Libraries of Congress.
(Kidding aside, it's a bit more than half a million square meters.)
Re: (Score:1)
Units (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
add some wolves.. (Score:2)
While some of you will look at me like I am crazy, a simple yet observable fact can be noted
( and I believe already documented in Yosemite ). Before the wolves introduction, river banks
and the plains that lead up to them were lacking in tree growth. Once the wolves were established,
grazing animals had to look for water in other locations or drink quickly from the past location.
Wolves hunt in the grazing areas.
This, of course, needs to be revalidated since it's been at least 10 years since I've paid any
atten
The world is not static (Score:2)
Hey guys! The world is not a static place. Things change.
Soap bubbles are very pretty, but they don't last long. Neither does anything else in the world. Appreciate what you see when you see it but stop trying to keep it. You can't keep it and it is a mental disease to try.
Just stop.
Picking winners and losers (Score:2)
So why is it up to us to choose whether the grove wins, or the animals feeding on it? Isn't this what nature dues? Different organisms are always vying for growth, many times at the expense of others. It's how nature balances itself. Why is this bad news?