Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
washingtonpost.com
Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
1–10 of 147 posts
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#2I wonder if they'll find any hope with those trees left unscathed that are deemed "resistant."
Also, with something like this, how do they remove the trees without the disease spreading in the process? I know when I go to prune bits of my roses that have black spot or rust, it can spread just by contact in the course of removal which can be damn near impossible to avoid. I can only imagine how that scales at tree size.
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#3>while there may once have been a chance to stop the spread of $ARTICLE_TOPIC — around the year $CURRENT_DATE_MINUS_FIFTEEN_YEARS — that opportunity has since passed. Forces didn’t mobilize fast enough or spend enough money
FTA, with minor edits; I think we'll see a lot more language like this in the coming ten years. The consequence, which absolutely no one would be against ("what do you mean, there's 90% fewer oak trees?!"), always seems to logically follow the general disinterest in preventing the problem ("what do you mean, the _forestry service_ needs a 800% budget increase?!"). OTOH, it's generally clear what we should have done, in hindsight, but there's all kinds of stuff like this running around. The ever-eastward spread of the Asian long-horned beetle; what ocean acidification is going to do to corals and anything else that uses calcium carbonate to build its shell; etc
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#4On the coast we have sudden oak death. In the hills they have pine bark beetles. Bad years for (some) trees.
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#5What can be done to deal with the death of trees, then? Mass planting of resistant species?
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#6The prevention to this type of problem is probably the same measure needed to fix many forestry problems.
Regular fires.
But now we have homes right up to the forest and no one wants to look at charred land for two decades. So I suppose it's still a no go. The thing about fire though is eventually it probably happens anyway.
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#7This makes me wonder what role fire normally plays in the life-cycle of tree pathogens. Does this fungus survive heat well? Can it survive in the soil long enough to spread to a new host (presumably a new Oak tree)?
As a second point, this demonstrates the danger presented by monoculture. The industrialization of agriculture horticulture has been unquestionably beneficial for us as a species. However, we do an absolutely terrible job of managing existential risks in horticulture. When we grow crops, we grow millions of acres of the same crop. When we plant trees, we plant thousands of the same trees. City streets in the US used to be lined with Ash trees, as they were inexpensive and fast growing. Now there are areas where almost every tree has been cut down because of the Emerald Ash Borer.
I think the blame can be assigned as much to the consumer as it can with the individuals growing the plants. Consumers, (myself included) are extremely picky about what they will eat or buy. Varieties of crops are selected for their looks, and varieties of crops that are not consistently good looking fall by the wayside.
I don't think this will cause a famine in the first world in the near future, but the poor genetic diversity of our horticulture is definitely an area of concern.
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#8>while there may once have been a chance to stop the spread of $ARTICLE_TOPIC — around the year $CURRENT_DATE_MINUS_FIFTEEN_YEARS — that opportunity has since passed. Forces didn’t mobilize fast enough or spend enough money FTA, with minor edits; I think we'll see a lot more language like this in the coming ten years. The consequence, which absolutely no one would be against ("what do you mean, there's 90% fewer oak…
I think if we're being honest, we should have been seeing those article for the last ten years.
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#9I wonder if they'll find any hope with those trees left unscathed that are deemed "resistant." Also, with something like this, how do they remove the trees without the disease spreading in the process? I know when I go to prune bits of my roses that have black spot or rust, it can spread just by contact in the course of removal which can be damn near impossible to avoid. I can only imagine how that scales at tree siz…
I was thinking the same - eventually resistance develops.
Re: Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer stoppable
#10I wonder if they'll find any hope with those trees left unscathed that are deemed "resistant." Also, with something like this, how do they remove the trees without the disease spreading in the process? I know when I go to prune bits of my roses that have black spot or rust, it can spread just by contact in the course of removal which can be damn near impossible to avoid. I can only imagine how that scales at tree siz…
> I wonder if they'll find any hope with those trees left unscathed that are deemed "resistant."
Something similar has happened with Ash Die Back in the UK with a resistant tree named Betty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-36110639
Here's a bit about Ash dieback: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35876621