New Berkeley study on grass and global warming misses one very important issue

Caveat, no, it isn’t about “grass use” in UC Berkeley, and note the press release with the key word, “could” in the title.

From the University of California – Berkeley

Exotic Grass: At Tom's Point in Marin Co., Calif., near Tomales Bay, the exotic grass Holcus lanatus is common. Credit: Brody Sandel

Warming climate could give exotic grasses edge over natives

Invasive grasses are better equipped than natives to deal with increasing temperatures

California’s native grasses, already under pressure from invasive exotic grasses, are likely to be pushed aside even more as the climate warms, according to a new analysis from the University of California, Berkeley.

In the study, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Global Change Biology and is now available online, UC Berkeley biologists catalogued the ranges of all 258 native grasses and 177 exotic grasses in the state and estimated how climate change – in particular, increased temperature and decreased rainfall – would change them.

They concluded that many of the traits that now make exotic grasses more successful than many natives also would allow them to adapt better to increased temperature and likely expand their ranges.

“When we looked at current patterns, we found that warmer temperatures favor certain traits, and these are the traits possessed by exotic species,” said coauthor Emily Dangremond, a graduate student in the UC Berkeley Department of Integrative Biology. “This led us to predict that, if the mean temperature increases in all zones in California, there is an increased likelihood of finding exotic species, and an increase in the proportion of species in a zone that are exotic.”

The study was inspired by a 2008 class run by David Ackerly, a UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology, that focused on the role plants play in their ecosystem and how those roles may alter with climate change. This area of study, called functional ecology, is being used more and more by ecologists to predict the consequences of global warming.

“The ‘trait-based’ approach lets us test hypotheses about plant distributions in relation to climate without tying them to the identity of particular species,” Ackerly wrote in an email from South Africa, where he is on sabbatical. “As a consequence, the analyses can be generalized beyond California to other grassland areas.”

With grasses, the increase in exotics could make the state more prone to wildfires, since invasive grasses dry out in the summer more than do native grasses. Some grasses serve as reservoirs for viruses and other pathogens that attack food crops, while others more efficiently suck up water that would normally be used by other grasses and plants,

Dangremond is involved in a study of European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria), which she has found harbors deer mice that eat endangered lupines. The beachgrass has invaded sand dunes along much of the coast in California, Oregon and Washington, she said.

For the current study, Dangremond and postdoctoral fellow Brody Sandel, now at Aarhus University in Denmark, divided California into 800 zones, and characterized all the grasses in these zones according to 10 distinct traits related to growth, reproductive and light capture strategies. These traits included grasses’ maximum height; plant and leaf lifespan; seed mass; month of first flowering; length of flowering period; specific leaf area, leaf length and width; leaf nitrogen concentration per mass and per area; and the grass’s specific photosynthetic pathway. The data came primarily from the updated “Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California” published by UC Press.

Some zones in the state contained as many as 163 grass species, while others had as few as three. In some zones, two-thirds of all grasses were exotics. The researchers found that, in general, the higher the average temperature in a zone, the greater the proportion of exotic grass species.

Exotics differed significantly from natives on seven of the 10 traits in ways that made them more adaptable to higher temperatures. For example, exotics tended to be taller, have longer and wider leaves, higher specific leaf area, higher nitrogen mass in the leaves and higher seed mass, and were less likely to be perennial. Noxious invasives were even more extremely adapted to warmer temperatures.

These traits account for the success of invasive exotic grasses, Dangremond said. Taller grasses, for example, give exotics more light-capturing ability and the ability to outcompete natives for light. Similarly, the larger seeds of exotic species could give these grasses a competitive advantage at the seedling stage.

“As climate changes in the coming century, which at this point is quite certain, this means we expect the distributions of the grasses to change as well,” Ackerly wrote. “Sadly, what this predicts is that the alien species that already dominate the Central Valley and other hotter regions of the state will become even more widespread in the future.”

“I hate to be a doomsayer, but the problem is getting worse because of humans,” Dangremond said. “Humans promote the spread of invasive species by disturbing areas and letting weedy species come in, and grazing herbivores like cows and elk tend to have a negative effect on native plants anyway. Native species really have a lot to contend with now.”

For more information:

###

Here’s the issue. Former State Climatologist Jim Goodridge shows that most of the warming since 1900 in California is in the most populated areas.

Unfortunately, these studies don’t seem to take things like this into account, choosing instead, blanket assumptions on temperature.

But when they say “”I hate to be a doomsayer, but the problem is getting worse because of humans,”  they are partially correct. As Jim Goodridge shows, UHI driven by human population does in fact create a warming trend in California. I suppose that means weeds in our cities and backyards might get more common than native grasses, but isn’t that the case anyway?

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Doug in Seattle

Its grass. Why should I or anyone else care a whit about it?

Annie

Has not California had a cooler than usual Summer?
I notice we are meant to feel ever more guilt for being born as humans!

If you take away the emotional loading of “invasive”, this is simply a tautological statement of basic evolution. A species or variety that moves into an area is doing so because it’s more adaptable to different conditions. (If it wasn’t adaptable, it couldn’t “invade”.)

timetochooseagain

AGW is good for evil grass, bad for nice grass. Apparently.
How does warming know-heat isn’t this smart, or diabolical-to only help the bad life forms and hurt the good ones? The idea that this is the case, which is the impression one gets reading the various news stories, leaves me, and I hope any sentient individual, incredulous.

Bill Parsons

If the goal were the genetic purity of North American grass species, I’d say that ship has sailed a long while ago. We have thousands of grass species in Colorado, and hundreds of what the researchers are calling “exotics”. The “invaders” no doubt came in waves: on the moccasins of what we now call natives who crossed the Bering Straits; or on the cloaks of explorers from Europe during the ages of exploration.
One grass we have a lot of in Colorado, and doing fine in this era of soaring greenhouse temperature (/ sarc) — despite being a short grass — is a brome everybody calls “cheatgrass”. Nobody seems to like downy brome because it affords little forage, and turns browns early in the summer. One story of its etymology is interesting to me because it suggests its age. Cheat, comes from the word eschete, which is an old French variant of “fall”. In Medieval times, lands would fall back to the Lord of the Fee, if their designated inheritors failed to be recognized as legitimate. Such property became known as eshete lands, and they often fell into disuse, their crops going to waste, and the less favored grasses moved in: the eschete grasses.
So, FWIW, the invading aliens are already here… living amongst us…

DesertYote

WOW, what a horribly bad study.

MJ

We just need more cows, sheep, and goats in California…

Mark

Thanks for the historical temperature data sorted by population! Very interesting, and potentially benifical when discussing social justice items with the powers that be in the state.
I can think of lots of interesting ways to sort and evaluate the data further. By chance has Jim Goodridge evaluated the data sets further? Asphalt vs concrete surfaces come to mind as something I’d like to see data on, etc.

Ray

It seems that there will be more exotic grass around airports then….

RK

Eco-systems are complicated. I attended a talk about native plant protection recently in the bay area and learned a few things. All these comments are related to populated areas. One: fire protection steps may adversely affect some native grasses. Tall dry grasses are no-no in these parts. They are always mowed down by the start of the dry season. This would benefit shorter species. Two: plants are affected by the insect and wild life population. We have an explosion of deer population. They eat certain plants and won’t others. For example, the star thistle, which is a non-native plant, thrives because deer won’t eat them. These factors alone can select what species will thrive and what will not. They have very little to do with temperatures.

Latitude

Every drop in CO2 has been hand in hand with a plant evolution…
. one of the biggest drops was when grasses evolved
Of course more CO2 is better for grasses………………..

Ben D Hillicoss

in the land of fruits and nuts…grass is king (queen?)
Ben D Hillicoss
ps so glad I moved to Maine and out of California

rbateman

Well darn, I guess that leaves NW California out in the cold. It’s been getting cooler the past 7 years, and those pesky native grasses stay green all year. Especially if you pull up the invasives and nix the expesive herbicides, or stop weed-whacking everything to bare dirt death.

James Sexton

“As climate changes in the coming century, which at this point is quite certain, this means we expect the distributions of the grasses to change as well,” Ackerly wrote. “Sadly, what this predicts is that the alien species……….
================================================================
lmao!!! You mean, sniff, that the earth, the flora sniff…sniff and the fauna isn’t static!!! sniff, sniff, waaahhhh…… waaahhh!!!!
Yes, sadly, very sad.
They should do like Kansas did. Just 10 miles west of here, at the junction of U.S. 169 and U.S. 400, there is a rest area. And, in that rest area, there is a patch of ground that has native prairie grass in it. We’re very proud. We’ve got signs and explanation of the flora. I kid you not. Imagine a traveler, having gone the width and breadth of Kansas, seeing nothing but miles and miles of prairie grass, gets to stop and see…… prairie grass. Preserved for posterity, I suppose. I’m kinda surprised Cali didn’t think of something that insipidly stupid, first. Prolly, someone from Cali that imported to here……
(No offense to the sensible people still left in that state……. both of them.)

Robert of Ottawa

Oh come on, Anthony. Everyone knows BC (British California) grass is better than mere California grass; and, if this is true, it will be even better. Or have I missed something 🙂

Leon Brozyna

No matter mankind’s role in the changing climate, 2°C or .1°C, here sounds the clarion call of the midget minds, wanting the safety and security of an unchanging environment. A new plant or a new animal appears on the scene and all that was taken for granted is out the window. It strikes terror in the hearts of those seeking the safety and comfort of the known, the familiar.
Well, guess what … that’s the way the universe works and has worked for over 13 billion years … never ending change.

LazyTeenager

Here’s the issue. Former State Climatologist Jim Goodridge shows that most of the warming since 1900 in California is in the most populated areas.
———-
Well UHI is a reasonable explanation for this. But it is not an open and shut case because “correlation is not causation”.
An important factor is that cities tend to be coastal. And if coastal conditions cause a greater temperature trend then that could represent an alternative explanation that makes equal sense or is at least a contributing factor.

Tim Clark

“For example, exotics tended to be taller, have longer and wider leaves, higher specific leaf area, higher nitrogen mass in the leaves and higher seed mass, and were less likely to be perennial. Noxious invasives were even more extremely adapted to warmer temperatures.”
Since they’re generalizing, let a real physiologist have a go….
1. The most competitive invaders are perennials, not annuals. Fire kills annuals, not perennials. Lack of natural burning favors invasive annuals, native or not. Fire is native, lightning is a natural occurrence. Go figure.
2………taller…..longer…..wider leaves………… higher leaf area……….higher seed (yield) mass
= INCREASED YIELDS. Whoa, did i just write that?
3. Wheat is a non-native grass. Corn is a non-native grass. Oats. Barley. What’s your point. Who cares where it comes from?
4. Different species of rusts, viruses, bugs etc. attack native and non-native grasses. Deal with it.
These folks just don’t like people. We should live like the Indians. Let the populace eat cake. Etc.

Steve Garcia

Yes, Anthony, always point out caveats in papers and articles. The more times, the better. Draw attention to their fudging uncertainty, while usually letting MSM headlines blare abject certainty.
It is dishonest for the scientists to let such headlines pass.
It IS honest, though, if the caveats are in the titles/headlines. But still, WUWT should point out the iffy-ness for what it is – them saying they don’t really KNOW.

Tim Clark

By the way, one of the most efficient grasses known to man is called johnsongrass. It is classified as a noxious weed in most states. Under certain circumstances, it can cause death when eaten by cattle and horses (long dry spells with high soil nitrogen availability). We could save a ton of expelled CO2 on annual plantings if we taught people how to raise it instead of outlawing it. Guess they’re being a bit hypocritical.

Lonnie E. Schubert

If I recall my history correctly, California has already had most of its native grass overrun by the invasive species several decades ago. I doubt it can get worse. Everything seems to be fine so far.

GixxerBoy

I have just come back from northern California and never in my life have I experienced such massive temperature variation within such short distances. 20F in less than a mile, and that was the case all over – from the Sonoma coast to Big Sur, from the Bay area up to Napa. How anyone can claim an accurate T record for that part of the world is beyond me.

Gary Pearse

Biologists were the first to become post normal scientists. Anything good for humans is bad for the plants and animals. They are not climate scientists but they are certain that:
““As climate changes in the coming century, which at this point is quite certain…!!!!
Quite? Isn’t this a bit mealy mouthed. Is she pregnant or not? Also, it is not a scientific paper that uses terms like “sadly” “hate to be doomsayer but humans….”
As a geologist and an engineer I never write such stuff: Sadly, the comet impact killed off the dinosaurs. I hate to be a doomsayer but hominids and humans wiped out the wooly mamoth and the latter brought asian plant seeds to North America. I don’t trust a biologist under 150 years old.

Jim

MJ says:
July 29, 2011 at 3:59 pm
We just need more cows, sheep, and goats in California…
*****
Wow MJ, I didn’t know you could burn sheep!

Another important question: does a COOLING climate benefit native grasses?
If not, the non-native grasses win EITHER WAY… and the study is entirely moot regardless of warming…

We are already seeing invasive grass in California – being planted by invasive illegal aliens.

tom s

Off Topic but Breaking News….Tropical Storm Don just virtually collapsed as it moved inland. Low level circulation still evident south of Corpus but the deep convection has collapsed. Sorry moisture starved Texas. I’m sure some re-generation of shwr/t-storm activity is in the offing around the low level center tomorrow during the heating of the day but widespread rains look unlikely now.

Jack

In Australia, buffalo grass from the USA is classified as a pest, even though livestock producers love it. Similarly, buffel grass from Africa is called a pest but it has saved many livestock producers in Australia.
change the seasons and grazing patterns and the flora changes. Nothing to do with CAGW causing it, it is a response to various factors.

of course if rural areas warm by 1C and urban areas warm by 2C, then the fact that urban warms faster than rural, doesn’t negate the warming that happens in rural areas.
““This led us to predict that, if the mean temperature increases in all zones in California, there is an increased likelihood of finding exotic species, and an increase in the proportion of species in a zone that are exotic.”
classic If, then.
If it warms in a zone ( be it urban or rural or whatever) THEN you will increase the likelihood of seeing plants there that like it warmer. if, then.
If it doesnt warm more in rural, then of course you’re likelihood will not go up.
Seems pretty basic: if, then.
the question of course is … will it? or has it?
grassmometers

tokyoboy

I am happy to get to the source (paper, or report?) of the Jim Goodridge’s Figure. Thanks.

David Falkner

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!
Climatologists discover evolution. Man to blame.

timetochooseagain

LazyTeenager-Actually, physically speaking one would probably expect coastal sites to warm less than inland. There is generally a tendency for oceans to warm or cool less than land areas expected due to the difference in heat capacity of the oceans versus land, and much as you will tend to find that there is less seasonal variation near coastal areas than inland, but more than over the oceans themselves, one would expect long term trends to be smaller at the coasts than farther inland, although presumably larger than the sea surface itself. In other words, we expect the opposite of your proposed alternative explanation. 🙂

Chad Jessup

Coming from an agriculture background, I have to say that the study deserves a big “So What! What’s the Big Deal?” The reason behind the increase in forest fires is the federal government’s mismanagement of the forests for allowing underbrush to grow unabated. The Indians of time-past exercised, indirectly, proper forest management with the practice of starting fires during the fall season to force game down to the lower elevations for ease of hunting, a habit which eliminated the heavy growth of underbrush that serves as gasoline for a huge fire.

Dave Worley

Those wild oats at Point Reyes are terrifying!
What shall we do, Rhett, what shall we do?

Bill Illis

This study is exactly wrong.
More CO2 gives ALL grasses a disadvantage because more CO2 takes away the advantage that C4 grasses had over C3 broad-leafed plants, trees and bushes when CO2 levels are low as they have been for the past 24 million years.
Grasses are not as efficient as broad-leaf plants in total biomass volumes except when CO2 levels are very low and/or when it is hot and/or when it is dry. When CO2 levels are low, C3 broad-leafed plants need to open their “breathing” stomata more. This means that there can be more envirotranspiration of water and broad-leafed plants can die off if there is not enough rainfall, especially if it is hotter. So it is hot and dry and low CO2 that gives grasses an advantage.
High CO2 means grasslands are doomed because C3 broad-leafed plants will out-compete them except for perhaps hot and dry locations like the Saharra where grasses will now grow instead of desert conditions prevailing.
In addition, greenhouse theory is based on increased temperatures increasing the water vapour in the atmosphere which also means there will be more rainfall everywhere (other than a 9 day delay when water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere – the increased drought propositions are not really based on the science – rainfall will increase everywhere).

R. de Haan

“I hate to be a doomsayer, but the problem is getting worse because of humans,” Dangremond said. “Humans promote the spread of invasive species by disturbing areas and letting weedy species come in, and grazing herbivores like cows and elk tend to have a negative effect on native plants anyway”.
Smoking grass can make a person depressive and seriously delusive.
Especially in California.

Mike Jowsey

Pathetic – people actually feel pride in getting paid to produce such mindless garbage?
How many things can I find wrong with this pile of elk dung?

“Humans promote the spread of invasive species by disturbing areas and letting weedy species come in, and grazing herbivores like cows and elk tend to have a negative effect on native plants anyway. Native species really have a lot to contend with now.”

Bad ol’ humans up to their tricks again huh? But wait, what about animals and birds – they have no effect on migration of ‘weedy species’? They don’t ‘disturb areas’? Come on!
Grazing herbivores have been in America for eons – how did the poor native flora survive all this time? Apparently they have to ‘contend’ with more now. Come on! Emotional claptrap. Get a life (and a real job) UC Berkeley biologists.

Gary Hladik

Pretty scary…until you think about how California’s “native grasses” got to be California’s native grasses.
James Sexton says (July 29, 2011 at 4:38 pm): “(No offense to the sensible people still left in that state……. both of them.)”
None taken. 🙂

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Speaking of grass and Berkeley……
You can oft times smell grass burning when passing through Berkeley. But that’s a different grass.

Hi all –
One of the original authors on the paper here. It’s interesting to see what you all have to say about this. I’d just like to make a few things clear.
First, the results in the paper are a prediction based on data. They are not politically, socially or economically motivated. We don’t think people are “bad”, “evil” or anything like that. The results of our analysis could certainly have gone the other way – it is possible that temperature increases will HELP some native species. It seems that’s not the case for grasses.
Why should you care? Well, there is some economic value in native grasses (as forage for livestock, etc.). There is also a conservation reason. I happen to think there is value in maintaining, at least somewhere, the state’s plant species. This includes grasses, why shouldn’t it? You might disagree – in your mind native and exotic plants might have equal value. That’s a totally separate question from whether the results of the study are valid, though.
The graph in the OP is interesting. It suggests that our prediction will be strongest in heavily populated areas.
“timetochooseagain says: AGW is good for evil grass, bad for nice grass. Apparently.
How does warming know-heat isn’t this smart, or diabolical-to only help the bad life forms and hurt the good ones? The idea that this is the case, which is the impression one gets reading the various news stories, leaves me, and I hope any sentient individual, incredulous.”
If anyone were claiming that temperature changes were planning to hurt certain species, you should be incredulous. Fortunately, we aren’t. Temperature changes are likely to hurt some species and help others. We asked a simple question – which groups will be hurt, and which helped. We got an answer to that question.
“Bill Parsons says: So, FWIW, the invading aliens are already here… living amongst us…”
That is true. In fact, we show data in the paper estimating how the number of exotic species in the state has increased through time.
“Lonnie Shubert says: If I recall my history correctly, California has already had most of its native grass overrun by the invasive species several decades ago. I doubt it can get worse. Everything seems to be fine so far.”
True again! Much of CA is already covered by exotic species. However, there are parts of the state where that is not true, particularly as you move into the mountains. Whether that is fine or not depends on whether you place value on conserving native species.
“Dave Stevens says: Another important question: does a COOLING climate benefit native grasses?
If not, the non-native grasses win EITHER WAY… and the study is entirely moot regardless of warming…”
Yes, our results suggest that cooling should favor native species.
Anyway, as I said, it’s very interesting to see all these comments. I’m happy to continue this discussion, and will try to check back for responses.

Bill Illis-“the increased drought propositions are not really based on the science – rainfall will increase everywhere).”
Actually this is not quite right. While indeed models project total precipitation over the whole Earth to increase, they differ wildly about the distribution of changes in precipation, and do not, in fact increase it “everywhere” but have some areas lose and some gain, in net more gains than losses. Mind you, they vary a great deal about what areas will lose and which will gain, but they do all lack uniform increases. Additionally, you are incorrect about the reason why precipitation increases overall-it is not because of higher humidity but rather higher evaporation, which always equals precipitation globally. The alleged wv feedback is not a consequence of evaporation, incidentally, even though many scientists explain it that way-it is actually because saturation vapor pressure of wv is higher at higher temperatures, and models have wv follow the Clausius clayperon models have water vapor follow cc scaled to the level of relative humidity which is held quasi constant or even increases in models (which corresponds to forcing wv to even more tightly follow cc) and this independent of the evaporation question.

dp

This is a case of being smarter than the problem. We create a native grasses exchange program set up where all the nations of the world export their best native grasses to another country where, according to this article, they will prosper. This will ensure that all nations have the very best non-native grasses in abundance. If it was good enough for Estonia, it’s good enough for me, I say. I hope they appreciate our Kentucky Blue grass, where ever it goes.

Eric Anderson

Thanks, Mr. Sandel, for commenting. Welcome!
I’m curious about the assumption that with warmer world there will be less precipitation. Is that based on data that have been seen in California or is there a particular model you used as the basis for the temperature-rainfall connection?

Hey brody thanks for stopping by. I found the reaction to the paper be rather odd. But I’m curious about the data and the 800 zones. Any way I can get my hands on that?

Duster

California has not had a “natural” landscape for several millennia. The “native” grass lands of California were structured to a very great extent by seasonal fires, largely started by the indians. The “immigrant” invading grasses are annuals that tend to mature earlier and have shallow roots that are killed by fire. The “native” grasses were largely perennial with deeper root systems that could survive fire. There also many more species of flowering annuals and perennials around. Suppression of seasonal burning is the single biggest problem faced by the native grass. If we really wanted to help it, we could star setting seasonal fires in the fall, but I can see the regional air boards agreeing to that – not.

J.Hansford

Maybe native grasses will respond better to higher CO2 levels…. But I ‘spose they didn’t look for that?

Hello again,
Thanks for your responses. It’s a little scary jumping into a discussion like this, but I really think we won’t make much progress unless people can have honest debates (even with those they disagree with). So, I thought I’d give it a go!
To your question, Eric: My understanding is that precipitation changes have much greater uncertainty than temperature changes. Various models have predicted either increases or decreases. In the paper, we said that changes in precipitation are uncertain, but are likely to include modest decreases in some areas. This was based on the work of Cayan et al. (Climate change scenarios for the California region), which can be found here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/6rr76v0l151283p7/. They evaluated different climate models and emissions scenarios. For the results of our paper, though, precipitation is not likely to matter a great deal – temperature was by far the dominant control on grass distributions.
To Steven: We’re certainly open to sharing data. Some of the data that we used is in databases that don’t belong to us (trait databases), but most of it is, in fact, publicly available. Feel free to contact me directly and we can discuss what you need (my email is easily found on the web).
Finally, to dp: I suspect you might have been joking here (at least a little?), but this has actually been seriously proposed. It is often called “assisted migration”. It’s VERY controversial among ecologists, particularly those who are concerned that we don’t know enough about most species to make reasonable guesses about where they should go, and what they would do when they got there.

I thought greater bio-diversity was a good thing, with a greater number of species of both perennial and annual grasses, the effects of a greater range of climate variations will be dampened, as the micro climates of sections of fields, allow an even greater growth rate for the composite culture as opposed to a more monoculture blend on natives.
Different species have peak growth times under different conditions, and the sod is almost always a composite of all species, each finding its preferred niche of soil type shade and moisture requirements. Having converted Kansas marginal crop land back to graze able cover crops starting with seeding selected grasses and alfalfa, and watching what the blend of grasses and weeds end up like over 25 years, under different grazing pressures, I understand the slow transition to better adapted species. There also is a shift from what I planted as the bare dirt is more covered with sod, the auto reseeding of legumes and thistles in bare dirt, yields to a fuller blend of all grasses as the top soil improves, insects and earth worms need a constant supply of edible organic matter that builds soil tilth and fertility.
The addition of small flowering weeds and wild flowers supports flying insects, bees, wasps, spiders, praying mantis, grasshoppers, crickets, and many other segments of the natural food chain, that benefit from the greater diversity of the vegetation that supports the whole system. Birds, small mammals, rodents, squirrels, chipmunks, groundhogs, and the local predators, and scavengers.
In the 25 years I have spent returning my 160 acres back to a more sustainable bio diverse habitat, I have noticed that no one thing takes over, but many share the times of the year they grow and bloom, change where they prefer to grow in wetter and dryer times, colder and warmer years.
Rough weeds are there to make a fast growth and cover the bare dirt with leaves, stalks, and roots to stop erosion in the early stages of the land reclamation process, the grasses build sod to hold and filter soil crumbs out of the runoff, until the buildup of organic matter is faster than the decay into top soil, and the absorbancy of rain fall is enhanced. More variety just gives more plants different seasonal windows to do their peak growth, so in the end there is something sprouting, shooting up, blooming, dying and decomposing at all times. Just a wise people select there friends, plants share there space, water, sunlight, and nutrients with their neighbors as well.

Allan M

grazing herbivores like cows and elk tend to have a negative effect on native plants
Well now, the time has come to have a negative effect on my breakfast.

L

And exactly who is paying for this unneccessary “research”? You, friends — you. As a nation, we are currently locked in a struggle of whether or not we continue to fund such nonsense — and I say, we have more importantant priorities. This is a fascinating discussion; I side with the more pure evolutionary proponents, but this is hardly the most important issue on the table at the moment. Many of us need to be expressing our heartfelt opinions not only here, but in forums that can have an impact in the present.
It’s only a matter of time now until the CAGW fraud becomes the past. Not encouraging y’all to end the conversation, but could some of the more intelligent posters here start foccusing your attention on what is happening within the US Government? Apoligies to Anthony, who has done a spectacular job in unhorsing the libs on “climate change,” and may God bless him. He has won.
Let us rejoice in the successful conclusion of this battle and concentrate our efforts on the far more real battle ahead, defeating this illiberal mindset at its roots.Much more is at stake here than our opinions on climate change. L