next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --089e01184e62693bf50528e7420d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 David It's exasperating to never get anywhere to encounter argument for its own sake seemingly not directed anywhere but always under the guise of going after truth. People on this Nature NS site should expect that we are not wasting their time and should not want to relegate the site to the junk box as they do. We can all pick arguments and go after the holes of everything..COP21, multiculturalism, trade unions, evidence for acid rain and calcium depletion, utility of parks and protected areas..whatever. Sometimes there is a point, other times however, it seems the point is diluted by the fact that reasonable conclusions are undermined by endless microanalysis that makes us want to throw up our hands and say maybe Nature NS cannot the place for useful discussion leading to conclusion. I was starting to argue again, to make straightforward ecological points, to provide general patterns, but you have exhausted this thread as you may have exhausted others on this list serve. Nick On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:20 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: > Hi Doug & All, Jan 8, 2016 > I am partial to evidence based conclusions. I have yet to see any > experimental results based on NS material. All I have received are > fragments of the Gospel according to Nick & David P. If the evidence is so > great and obvious why is it being kept a secret ? > > The example which I quoted recently, and not explained, still has me > wondering if the fuss about drastic Ca depletion is more than a fad in some > cases and perhaps all cases. This was from Table 2 in Lawerence and > Huntington; given without background information. > > A site classified as highly sensitive to calcium depletion (Coweeta) > has 1370 kg/ha exchangeable Ca, total Ca of 11500 kg/ha total Ca and Net > Calcium depletion of 6.6 kg/ha/year. So exchangeable Ca, assuming no > recycling from Mixed Hardwood litter and foliage leaching which is of > course false [Most Ca in such litter would be released within a year], > would be sufficient for only 207 years. Note to self: urgent; order a > truckload of lime to be delivered in 100 years. > And Total Ca, in some undisclosed fraction of the rooting zone, of > which the major portion would be bound in minerals [and such weathering > would be speeded by the acidity of acid ppt.] would be sufficient once > released to last only 1700 years. > > I am partial to free and open evidence-based discussion. This latest > move; an official Nature NS policy sounds like a move to muzzle discussion > and replace it by worship of some ad-hoc form of Religion. If that in fact > proves to be the case then Naturens will wither to a bird watch forum or > some dust on a cobweb. > > In one of my recent e-mails I indicated the merits of research into > this and many other related questions. That bounced somewhat less than a > dead cat. > > The will be many Science Graduates in the near future with no prospect > of a job. And in my view there are a multitude of questions to be > investigated. Why are the self-appointed High Priests of Nature NS so > fearful of truth being laid bare ? > > Nick, as came to light recently, I knew more about the history of > charcoal forests in your UK area than you did. Is it perhaps possible that > I know almost as much as you do about barrens in my backyard ? You speak of "overharvest > transforming landscape into lower equilibrium states (e.g. shrub barrens > here and in NL)", > > Do you have documentary evidence of when these barrens carried a crop > of trees and when they were cut ? Where exactly are these barrens ? Have > you examined for traces of charcoal well below the litter layer by > flotation ? What textures and soil depths are represented ? Good soil or > good highway fill too shallow to bother mining ? > > For example, the large barren west of the Costley homestead on Route > 12 (just this side of the Salmontail River) was referred to by one of the > Costleys (Milton or Truman) as "the fire barrens". It goes back to the > mid-1800s if not earlier. And it seems likely that these barrens had help > getting and remaining in that state. All Lowbush Blueberries were harvested > wild in those days and those living in Nova Scarcity needed to use all > possible edibles. > > When my father was young [late 1800s, early 1900s] he and my > grandfather (as I learned by chance from some Costley70+ years later) used > to drive out (horse and buggy; by star, moon or slack reins both ways) > every year to pick blueberries and return to Cambridge, Kings Co with a > year's supply. His father David Costley was famous as a bear hunter and > elderly when he was decorated by Queen Victoria (early 1900s ?) for the > many Bear hides he had provided. One can be reasonably sure that > Blueberries were the bear draw. > > As recently as 1960 there was an area near Aldershot which used to > catch fire at a convenient time so there would be a renewal of the plants > and better crops for a few years. Vaccinium a. is not shade tolerant so > decent stands would tend to develop where light coarse soil texture could > support only scattered Pines, runty Betula populifolia and the like. > > And in addition to the fires set in relatively recent times by intent, > fires started by lightening or careless use of fire would be expected to > add to the roster over time. And before European settlers arrived there > were Indians for 8,000 to 10,000 (?) years and it would be strange indeed > it they over time did not have fire barrens until the berry plants played > out. To survive here, using stone age culture, I expect that on average > they were a good deal more intelligent than the average modern University > Prof. so they surely would have used fire and made good use of these > berries. > > I am concerned that ganging up on the government to make sudden > changes will snuff out use of Biomass period; woodland or otherwise. > Politicians never need bad press; least of all now. > > I have studiously avoided ever becoming a member of any organization > which might attempt to control thoughts. Personal freedom of thought is of > great value and members of the the Little Pioneers or whatever are expected > to, in North Korea style, acquire Little Pioneers ways of thought. > > > Yours truly, David H. Webster, Kentville > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Linzey" <doug.linzey@gmail.com> > To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.