On Dec 11, 9:21*pm, Janet wrote:
In article 91510494-4ca0-46b7-9d74-9bffed89f634
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com,
says...





On Dec 9, 10:22*pm, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:
URG only.

aquachimp wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:55 pm, Derek Turner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:26:04 -0800, Dutch wrote:
"VolksVegan" spewed snip

Be gone spammer

Well, having KF'd the moron I wouldn't have seen anything had you
not fed the troll.

I have to admit not reading *all that stuff, actually, none of it
really;

that said, there's an interesting article within a very recent New
Scientist edition. It's just a very small snippet about how lack of
biodiversity and increased illnesses have been link. Not a conclusive
report, but it seems that weeds are probably the harbingers of disease
because they have evolved to grow to reproductive maturity in a very
short time.. at the cost of investing in greater immunity.
Mind you, I thought they might be included in biodiversity; Darn it, I
all confused now.

Well, you've confused me, too! But "weeds" /are/ included in
biodiversity: wild plants are essential links in the ecological chain,
and I didn't think anybody doubted it. I don't think wild plants have
sacrificed much immunity to pests and diseases, have they? They
certainly seem a lot less vulnerable than most cultivars; but of course
that must be because they don't usually grow in large monocultures in
places they might not have chosen, perhaps as much as because of
constitutional factors and greater variety within a population...and of
course the pests and diseases are part of biodiversity.

How much effect that could have on mammalian immune systems, I've no
idea. Have you got the NS ref handy?

--
Mike.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ies-makes-ecos...

page 6 of Dec. 4th '10, right hand side, but heading is different "
Weeds of disease."

* *What that article does NOT say, is that weeds are harbingers of plant
diseases that infect other non-plant species. It just says, that where
you have a lot of one species in close proximity, any infections are
likely to affect the rest of the colony.

* *Janet

"Instead Keesing's team found that resilient "weed" species that
survive where other species might not, such as mice and ryegrass, also
happen to be the best reservoirs for infection. She believes this is
because weed species tend to live fast and die young, putting their
energy into rapid growth and reproduction instead of immunity.

There are too many examples of both plants and animals for this to be
just coincidence, she says.

Diseases of wildlife can jump to people. We need to find landscapes
that maintain enough biodiversity to keep a lid on them, Keesing
says."

So, certain "weed species" (plant and animal) happen to be the best
reservoirs for infection and disease from "wildlife" can jump to
people.

Context, inclusive of the use of the word "landscape" kinda implies
that such certain "weed", which include plants, are harbingers of
plant diseases that infect other non-plant species.

See why it seemed confusing?