11–20 of 43 posts
Let's not personify and demonize vines as a casus belli to destroy the environment in the name of saving it, please.
Trees have nothing to do with global warming. It is entirely caused by coal and oil. The only meaningful carbon storage would be pumping it back into the ground. Let's not personify and demonize vines as a casus belli to destroy the environment in the name of saving it, please.
Trees have nothing to do with global warming. It is entirely caused by coal and oil. The only meaningful carbon storage would be pumping it back into the ground. Let's not personify and demonize vines as a casus belli to destroy the environment in the name of saving it, please.
> Can anything be done about the liana problem? Should we start cutting them down? Definitely not, says Visser. "We shouldn't intervene until we fully understand their ecological role. They bear fruit year-round and are vital for rare monkey and bird species." The only necessary action, he insists, is halting climate change, which will also slow the expansion of lianas.
Trees have nothing to do with global warming. It is entirely caused by coal and oil. The only meaningful carbon storage would be pumping it back into the ground. Let's not personify and demonize vines as a casus belli to destroy the environment in the name of saving it, please.
Citation needed
>Let's not personify and demonize vines
who is personifying and demonizing vines? again, citation needed
> He attributes this to rising atmospheric CO₂ levels. "All plants grow faster with more CO₂, but lianas benefit even more And yet this extra growth all around because of co2 means that the will be more co2? This seems incoherent. Pet peeve - if the article hooks you with a line like 'visible from space' they should provide the imagery so I can see for myself. But there's no picture.
The original research just says "Global increase of lianas in tropical forests", the addition of "from space" is to get clicks here.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.17485
That's the better link to use for this anyway. It's open access so no reason not to go to the source.
It appears to be heavily statistical and based on scraping many studies for a meta analysis.
"Our meta-analysis resulted in 505 effect sizes (ES) extracted from 39 unique studies (Figure 2). An initial exploratory analysis following the vote counting approach showed a general trend of increasing liana prevalence throughout the tropics is evinced by 333 positive ES (66%) compared to 172 ES (34%) with decreasing or stable trends. After grouping ES per life stage and aggregating the results reported at the species level, 155 ES and their respective standard errors (SE) were obtained. The general increasing pattern and its geographical coverage hold for the reduced dataset, with 112 ES (72%) showing an increasing trend."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.... Figure 1
I don't think that really counts as a "picture from space" in common parlance, but I guess maybe a picture from Euclidean space?
Stand scale (900-m2 scale) data used satellite imagery from previous studies to contrast liana-infested and liana-sparse forest patches in Bolivia and French Guiana. In both cases, we obtained the original images used, which included a 30-m resolution Landsat Thematic Mapper (L1TP) image (French Guiana) and hyperspectral Hyperion imagery from NASA's EO-1 satellite (Bolivia).
> “The word liana does not refer to a taxonomic grouping, but rather a habit of plant growth – much like tree or shrub.“