Hmmm. Maybe they can try this method to help along the poor Adak National Forest in Alaska.
It’s looking a bit sparse.
6 Likes
They did have a control and did carry out detailed measurement. The abstract from the paper reports:
“After 16 years, the experimental plot showed a threefold increase in woody plant species richness, a tripling of tree species evenness (Shannon Index), and a 176% increase in aboveground woody biomass over an adjacent control plot.”
This next bit is from behind the paper paywall, but they are comparing one 3 hectare treatment plot to one 3 hectare control plot. That isn’t ideal - it would be better to have multiple plots of each - but I suspect that decision is partly down to practicality on the ground and partly wanting to use a big patch size to reduce edge effects (so they have a single larger block of forest with a reasonable ‘core’ rather than a handful of patches that are mostly edge).
So it might be that they are comparing what would have been a ‘good’ plot anyway to what would have been a bad plot. However, they are comparing two large adjacent patches from similar original use: “Only the 3 ha closest to the treatment site were surveyed, despite the 100 ha extent of the largely homogenous untreated former pasture contiguous with the treatment site.”
So yes, broadly speaking mulch works, but the effect size of the treatment is pretty striking and the mulch had the added effect of killing off existing non native plants and letting the native vegetation recover. It might not be a huge surprise but it is great to have trials on methods to aid restoration and doing this at a larger scale without trials would be pretty irresponsible!
21 Likes
Yup. The paper describes the treatment as initially creating an anoxic layer, which killed off non native plants, their roots, seeds and presumably a lot of the existing soil organisms. There was then a degradation process that left a rich soil for accelerated recolonisation from nearby conserved forest. Worms weren’t the main decomposers:
“The primary biodegraders of the orange waste were the larvae of three species of hoverflies (Syrphidae, unknown species), an abundant soldier fly (Stratiomyidae, Hermetia illucens), and their accompanying fungi and microbes (Janzen personal observation; Jimenez 1998), all common members of the decomposition process for fallen wild fruit crops in the adjacent ACG forests.”
15 Likes
Thanks, you saved me the pain needed to find the pdf. Doesn’t sound like I must read the paper, but it’s good to know it’s out there. =)
2 Likes
Ah, yes, how surprising; the calls of “fake” and “they did it all with zoom” turn out to be silly bullshit from people who never read the associated paper.
Qu’elle shock.
4 Likes
I didn’t call bullshit (yet), and would advise anyone to go to the original source. Whenever a scientific f finding is in the news, journalists (and research facilities’s PR departments) distort it so much that I cringe, and cry #canihazpdf.
And I mentally added a /s at the end of the posts above. I might be wrong, though…
3 Likes
Whatever. That same attitude is used as a universal tool to disparage any and everything, generally by ignorant Yahoos who have no idea at all what they’re gibbering about. It gets very, very old; this isn’t 4chan.
If you’re going to contradict what an article says, that’s perfectly legit, but the “I know better” attitude can be left off, especially when a little research easily shows you to be completely wrong. And don’t complain if Poe’s Law keeps biting you on the ass, if you must be sarcastic on the interwebs =).
Note: Here and above, that’s not a personal “you”; German has English soundly beat, in that regard.
4 Likes
Have you ever stopped to think about what you’re trying to accomplish? If it’s winning hearts and minds, then abusing your fellow commenters (“bullshit”, “gibbering”) is a strategy that very rarely succeeds.
If you want to enlighten, then the @David_O approach of reading the paper and bringing in interesting information that clarifies the topic is pretty excellent.
If you just want to drive off other commenters or start a fight, then stay the course I suppose. It will probably work
2 Likes
And you had what, exactly, to say about the original comments…? Interesting.
The reference required was already supplied, you know, within the article itself.
2 Likes
I do note - but you (personal you) still are venting steam towards me (personal me) by replying to something I wrote above.
Which is a bit puzzling. Since we are at the same page, but I chose not to ruin my day to worry about people commenting on PR illustrations, rather than on a scientific paper which could be interesting, but according to someone who read it and told us about it isn’t that much important for me (personal me). 
If sunflower seed shells do the same, one of my coworkers could reforest the Earth and the Moon as well.
2 Likes
Taking the pith? No - but taking it in zest, maybe.
I like the way the photo is in segments.
3 Likes
Nope. It literally isn’t about you, personally, in any way.
I’m just saying you were replying to my post.
Not to someone else’s showing no interest in reading the paper.
I observed, BTW, that people actually reading scientific papers for their own sake don’t comment on them, in writing. Nearly ever. It’s academic culture, I think, not to.
Does this explain why the Orange Free State looked like this?
5 Likes
…You should be ashamed of yourself.
slow clap I am so proud of you right now!
1 Like
SHUT UP TOBY
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
