On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:02:34 +0000 (UTC), (Victor
M. Martinez) wrote:

grzubber wrote:
Among other tidbits, the author cites fossilized juniper pollen found in a
cave in NW Bexar county, which would suggest that they are not non-native.

Pollen can travel large distances, right?

Paleopalynologists (the fossil pollen folks) infer the range of a
target species in a number of ways: by looking the frequency and
quantity of pollen deposited, comparisons to samples taken from
surrounding sites, evidence of the presence or absence of associated
species (plant and animal). Have a friend and former colleague who
works in this field... Cretaceous cycads, I believe.

Besides, the fact of the matter is
that junipers used to survive only in the canyons of the hill country, due
to the annual fires on the grasslands (which both grass and oaks have adapted
to, but juniper hasn't, further proof that it hasn't been around that long).

There _may_ be two distinct populations of J. ashei in central Texas,
one found primarily within grasslands and the other on rocky outcrops.
The records of early explorers say juniper occupied both types of
habitat pre-settlement. The overall extent of juniper coverage appears
to have been extensive.

Critical to this issue, and entirely missing from the article Keith
calls into question, is an understanding of the dynamic nature of the
oak-juniper-grassland association here in Texas. As weather shifted,
and grazing animals moved, and random events like wildfire occurred, a
grassland or oak forest or "cedar break" could disappear and/or regrow
in a geologic blink of an eye. Settlers arriving 200 years earlier
might have seen a very different plant community.

Ironic the overall anti-enviro slant of the anti-cedar fellow in the
article, since "cedar fever" is probably the single worst
environmental disaster central Texans have ever wrought upon
*themselves* (I can imagine the same mindset 150 years ago, wondering
what all the ruckus was over a few new cedar trees! :-)

I'm sure that there is pro-juniper 'spin' found on that website, but I am

You got that right!

Some of the pro-cedar conclusions aren't the only possible
explanations. But the research itself is noteworthy (a masters
thesis?) OTOH, ever notice how much anti-juniper research is by
aggie-types with "range management" credentials? :-)

sure there is a lot of anti-juniper 'spin' commonly reported. The truth is
probably in the middle somewhere.

Not necessarily. Consider the case of Selah (and many other ranches in the
Hill Country that have cleared the cedar). When Mr. Bamberger bought it, he
purposely looked for "the worse piece of land in the hill country" (his words).
It was all covered in cedar, dry, desolate, like much of the hill country is
nowadays. The deer population was tiny, both in numbers and size. He removed
all the cedar, except in the canyons and let nature do its thing. Springs
sprung (?) all over the place, grasses returned, along with lots of wildlife
that didn't use to live there anymore. The deer are now very large and abundant.
The land is healthier, it's as simple as that. Give them a call and see if
you can go visit and hear the story yourself, don't take my word for it.

Juniper has a fundamental role in any central Texas ecological
restoration. I'm confident the managers at Selah would agree.
Junipers is an early colonizer of disturbed sites, and may play a role
in the re-establishment of other plant communities (you can often find
young prairie plants huddled in the protection of a cedar's afternoon
shade). Cedar's an important source of food and nesting materials for
a number of animal species.

All that said, the true prairie is in real danger of disappearance in
central Texas, and removal of excess cedar is critical to any program
designed for grassland re-establishment.

As to nature taking its course, well, she *always* does, eventually,
whether we like the outcome or not. :-)