Superbowl

Things were much better back in my day. Everything went to hell around the Triassic. You kids wouldn't know, with your phones and your tablets and opposable thumbs.

EDIT: That was a good read btw

I feel as guilty as the next human for things out of my hands, but even I won't take blame for what happened before an apocalyptic meteor strike! 😜

Neat article though! I love the Devonian.

The trees are something we talk about with some frequency here.

I'll probably be making a longer reply in the other new comment about how we have more trees today than x years ago, but all trees are not equal.

We can see the young tree replacing the conifer on the right is too young to support any life.

The left tree used to be large enough to support the owl. After that was cleared, a new tree was planted, but never grew old enough to again support a large cavity nesting bird. The replacement tree was left to grow long enough to support a few different species, but then was again replaced with a younger tree that is now just barely useful to animals.

Old trees have had time to get to the size and state of weathering where they can support many different types of life, from mosses, to insects, to birds that eat those insects, to the large birds of prey that roost in cavities or snags where the top of the tree breaks off and provides nesting for the largest of birds. When we remove "dead" trees, we remove a crucial piece of a wooded ecosystem. While the tree is dead, it can be supporting hundreds of other types of life.

The amount more insects and such I can recall from being a kid in the 80s compared to now is staggering, so I can only imagine what it was like 100+ years ago, especially pre-Industrial Revolution.

I like to ask people i meet IRL if they have a lawn. Follow up question is why then?

A lot of people seem to be unaware of the history and origin of lawns. Put oversimply, they are and have always been about gross excess resources expenditure to show those around you how rich you are.

No do not clean up your leaves. Baby bugs use the leaves to keep warm in the winter. Cleaning up the leaves is reducing the population of helpful bugs.

Or, leave the leaves, and have beautiful lightning bugs in the summer

Native plants should also be less upkeep by virtue of being native. They have developed to thrive in that environment. They've developed resistance to local bugs, and the local rainfall and temperature cycle.

I've met some people that say they enjoy yardwork, but that sure isn't me! I'd rather see cool spiders, dragonflies, bees, and butterflies. And with local wildflowers, it's something unique to where you live, I'd think people would enjoy that.

Grass is just another chore to me.

Just replied this to a similar comment:

We can see the young tree replacing the conifer on the right is too young to support any life.

The left tree used to be large enough to support the owl. After that was cleared, a new tree was planted, but never grew old enough to again support a large cavity nesting bird. The replacement tree was left to grow long enough to support a few different species, but then was again replaced with a younger tree that is now just barely useful to animals.

Old trees have had time to get to the size and state of weathering where they can support many different types of life, from mosses, to insects, to birds that eat those insects, to the large birds of prey that roost in cavities or snags where the top of the tree breaks off and provides nesting for the largest of birds. When we remove “dead” trees, we remove a crucial piece of a wooded ecosystem. While the tree is dead, it can be supporting hundreds of other types of life.

There are some caveats to consider here. When is a tree not a tree? When it's not the right tree.

Old growth diverse forest is not the same as a monoculture tree farm. Let's look at both sides of this claim.

From NELMA%20of%20forest%20products.) (Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assoc)

Let’s back up for a minute. Prior to the arrival of European-Americans, about half of what is now known as the continental United States consisted of forest. From about 1620 to the dawn of the 20th century, millions of acres of forests were cleared to cultivate land and build structures. But initiatives to preserve forests, including reverting abandoned farm lands and developing sustainable forestry standards, have made a big impact.

We now have roughly two-thirds the amount of trees we had in the year 1600, and most of those gains have been concentrated along the Eastern coast, where the majority of the losses occurred in the first place. In fact, average wood-per-acre volumes have almost doubled since the 1950s. The United States has more trees today than we had 100 years ago (and a global study even found that the number of trees on Earth is around 3.04 trillion, a much higher number than previously believed.)

The United States is the world’s largest consumer (and second largest producer, after Canada) of forest products. While wood was once harvested mostly from federal lands, a shift to private lands has helped preserve vast areas of forest for public benefit while also encouraging landowners to keep forests intact. Responsible logging practices ensure that forests managed for the production of wood products contribute to healthy ecosystems while maintaining a steady supply.

So we have acknowledgment we've cleared a tooooon of our trees. The eastern US does have a bunch of trees today though, but as stated, these are new trees. Biodiversity is not specified here, so we'll ignore that right now. They also state demand for timber and wood products is higher than ever. But we're close to replacing what we take. One tree in exchange for one tree, so we're cool, right?

From The World Economic Forum

Scientists at the University of Maryland analysed satellite pictures showing how the use of land on Planet Earth has altered over a 35-year period. The study, published in Nature journal, is the largest of its kind ever conducted.

The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982. This equates to 7% of the Earth’s surface covered by new trees.

But what may sound like good news for the planet actually represents mixed news for the environment.

skipping some stuff

However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.

The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.

And man-made forests do not compensate for the damage and degradation done to ecosystems through land clearance.

skipping stuff

So while trees are being replaced, there is damage to more of the environment than just to the trees. Every plant or animal that needed those trees to survive many no longer be able to return.

The trees may not be of the same species that was removed. They may be trees not native to that area and not suited to support local wildlife. They may not even have been replanted on the same continent.

Young trees cant support cavity nesters like owls, and dont harbor the insect life without cracked and weathered bark, and birds like woodpeckers that would eat those insects are out of luck.

Even a planted biodiverse forest takes 100-200 years to become old growth forest. And replacing a rainforest or old growth forest with pine trees grown specifically to quickly harvest new timber is nowhere near an equivalent exchange.

if there's one thing boomers hate it's giving up convenience

And admitting they were wrong!

I'm only 40 years old and I remember how different it was. If you went on a weekend trip your car would be splattered with insects all over. Our garden used to be full of butterflies and other insects. I've been stung so many times but for my kids it's a really rare occasion.

Not to mention the weeks of snow instead of the scattered few days we have now. And hardly anybody seems to care.

I feel even that fits, as it's one bag today, but if no one feels the need to pick up a bag that isn't theirs, maybe tomorrow 2 bags is normal...

That's getting harder and harder to do for a lot of people. 🥺

It's one of the reason I try to represent a lot of more rare and exotic owls here. A lot of stuff we will never have the opportunity to see, especially in person, so I want to at least make people see what needs protecting. I think that's why well-run zoos and animal education centers are so important. It's near impossible to get people to care about things that they don't know even exist.

Most animals are drawn in a way that the viewer can identify them.

It's not a realistic image.

Interesting observation. Often one of the best times to spot and identify butterflies is really in the morning before they've warmed up and are basking in the sun with their wings wide open. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to draw butterflies as they're most easily seen.

Having spent so much time looking at owls now, probably 90% of owl drawings I see have the feet drawn in really silly ways. They're not always impossible ways for them to have their toes, but how they actually need to use them to hunt or to distribute their body weight is just not often depicted correctly. I think it's because most depictions fail to capture the correct ratio of foot:body and it doesn't look right (because it isn't), so they stick the outer toes in places they don't belong to fill that space.

The butterfly is probably the same way. We've seen that incorrect image displayed so much that the falsehood has replaced the truth for many of us. Even after we're shown it's incorrect, we often can have trouble reconciling it with years of having it ingrained the other way.