On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:40:58 GMT, (Babberney)
wrote:

In today's Statesman, an article by Mary Ann Roser profiles two guys
who are trying to eradicate this tree from Austin and the surrounding
area. Since the article is about them, I don't really mind her
quoting the guys as they spout myths and misconceptions about the
plant, but I was disappointed to see no mention of the true story in a
balanced treatment of the topic.

Well, now the editorial page endorses the description of this tree as
a water-wasting invasive non-native (they stopped short of agreeing
that we should kill 'em all and put people first over "dumb birds,"
but one gets the impression that they wouldn't really mind much if it
happened). And they are apparently not interested in printing my
letter that contradicts these assertions. *Am* I being duped by a
lone-voice crackpot, or are they just that miserable during "cedar
fever" season?

I thought I'd seen pretty conclusive evidence from more than one
source that the charges against this tree were trumped up and false,
but I was also pretty sure the editors would fall over themselves
correcting the errors when shown the light by a certified arborist.
Maybe I just didn't edit my letter very well--I definitely don't do my
best writing when worked into a tizzy over something.

k
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/.../consumer.html

"Victor M. Martinez" wrote in message
...
Babberney wrote:
Well, now the editorial page endorses the description of this tree as
a water-wasting invasive non-native (they stopped short of agreeing

But it *is* a water-wasting invasive non-native, is it not? Before
settlers
stopped seasonal fires from occuring, this tree took over what used to be
grasslands and suffocated the native grasses that used to thrive there.
Amen
to drying the multiple springs that used to provide water for the
wildlife.

-snip-



Many juniper 'facts' are challenged he
http://juniper1.home.texas.net/cedarstuff.html

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.

Also that a study measured stemflow of water in a 10 foot juniper and found
it varied seasonally from 22 liters/day in the rainy springtime to 3
liters/day in the summer months.

I'm sure that there is pro-juniper 'spin' found on that website, but I am
sure there is a lot of anti-juniper 'spin' commonly reported. The truth is
probably in the middle somewhere.

Well, there is almost certainly some truth to both of the previous
posts here. The tree is a native, but Victor is correct in saying it
has spread to areas where it previously didn't grow.

As for the water wasting, I'm not familiar with the site Victor
describes. What I do know is, all plants transpire. Water is pulled
from the soil and evaporates from the leaves. They also create shade,
which means less water evaporates directly from the soil. If you read
the material in the ("pro-cedar") link already provided, you'll see a
suggestion (presented as fact, so, yes, i suspect a bit of propaganda
here as well) that the increased percolation will diminish over time
as the oaks and other remaining plants extend their roots to take
advantage of the extra moisture. Whether or not that is true, what I
know about plants tells me that thay get water when and where they
can, and they can't pull water from dry soil. Junipers in drought are
not using the same amount of water that they will when it's raining.
And they do not have some nefarious taproot reaching into the bowels
of the aquifer to suck it dry.

To be perfectly honest, I do not know how other species compare in
terms of amount of water that flows through them (as I suspect is true
of most, if not all, of the people who cite the juniper figures as
proof that they suck it down too vigorously). But a big red flag goes
up in my mind when I see that the non-native claim is always attached
to the water-wasting one. It suggests that people with a grudge
against the tree parrot every bad thing they hear about it without
really looking into the facts, then refer to each other for evidence.

I'm sure there are people managing their property carefully who may
have seen benefits from their efforts (which may or may not be
long-term effects), but the guys profiled in the paper do not give the
impression that they will follow suit. They acknowledge they probably
cannot kill all the "damn cedars," but they are still willing to try.
Then they want to replace them all with live oaks--I know I don't have
to explaiin the risks that go along with monoculture here. And they
want us to forget the "dumb birds" and put people first--now there's a
change in policy for you if I ever heard one. Put people first--why,
it's downright revolutionary!

As for the newspaper, they did finally contact me about the letter (in
the past they've been much more prompt about this). They always say
they are "considering publication," so you may or may not see my
response in a day or two. I'm feeling a bit less smug in my
counter-arguments than I was, but I still believe there are truths
that are being ignored, and I hope my letter prompts some people to
look into this further than they would have.

k
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/.../consumer.html

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:52:01 GMT, (Babberney)
wrote:

As for the water wasting,

There is more to this than just the tree's water consumption as it
also has to do with capturing rainfall before it runs off.

The best surface for capturing rainfail is a mature, native grassland.
Say Little Bluestem/Sideoats Gramagrass, etc. These grasses hold the
water near the soil surface and allow for greater penetration of water
into the soil thus replenishing and holding near surface ground water
as well as feeding into underlying aquifers.

Replace this with a dense stand of juniper. First you loose the near
surface vegetative community, grasses, etc., and the rainfall tends to
run off more rapidly so there is less opportunity for it to soak in.
The loss of the groundcover is due in part to allelopathy. So you end
up with nothing but juniper needle "mulch" under these trees which
repeals rainfall to some degree.

Also, the upper trees tend to hold rainfall which is latter evaporated
so it never reaches the ground. Also, grasses go dormant in the
winter so they consume little water. Junipers are evergreen and
continue consuming water through the winter.

Grasslands used to burn off regularly, killing any invading junipers.
Native Indians may have assisted in this - but who knows. They hunted
edges in the vegetative landscape and fires maintained these edges.

Junipers have their place in canyons and steeply sloped areas where
grasses do not grow - elsewhere they are a weed.

Rusty Mase

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. :-)

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:52:01 GMT, (Babberney)
wrote:

As for the newspaper, they did finally contact me about the letter (in
the past they've been much more prompt about this). They always say
they are "considering publication," so you may or may not see my
response in a day or two. I'm feeling a bit less smug in my
counter-arguments than I was, but I still believe there are truths
that are being ignored, and I hope my letter prompts some people to
look into this further than they would have.

Looking for info on juniper litter today, found a site by our friends
over in College Station.
http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/juniper/TOC.htm

From the site is "A HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON JUNIPER " by Steve Nelle.
http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/juniper/NELLE.htm. Nelle's provided
the most balanced treatment of ashe juniper I've read to date, i.e. he
agrees with me. :-)

Nelle summarizes:

"1. Juniper woodlands are the native, natural vegetation type on many
sites.

2. Juniper has invaded into other grassland and savanna sites where it
is not natural.

3. The primary cause of the invasion is overgrazing and the lack of
fire.

4. Under conditions of overgrazing, the invasion of juniper is the
natural ecological response which provides a degree of protection and
rehabilitation to the site.

5. Watershed response to juniper control can be positive or negative
depending on subsequent grazing management.

6. Where juniper control is desired, it should be preceded by a firm
commitment to proper stocking rates, regular planned rest periods and
periodic prescribed burning. Otherwise it will quickly return.

7. The use of goats or other browsers to control juniper usually has
harmful side-effects of eliminating other more desirable species."



Hope this helps.

"Victor M. Martinez" wrote:
That's not what I've seen. Have you been to Selah? It's amazing what Mr.
Bamberger has done to that property. He's won many environmental and land
restoration awards. The first thing he did was cut down the cedar everywhere
except the canyons where it belongs.

Texas Monthly had an article about Selah a couple years ago. Go to
www.texasmonthly.com and put selah into their search engine. You'll
have to register to read it (no cost) but it's worth the effort. Nice
to see private landowners succeding where the government has failed.


Texas Monthly October 2000: Splendor in the Grass

--steve