A tiny beetle is killing tamarack trees in MN. Another example of AGW consequences.

spud_meister said:

Well that's interesting, the only explanation for increased beetle numbers that is supported with with evidence is, shockingly, the one found in the OP.

Click to expand...

Can you explain why the cold areas of the tree's range are being equally effected by this pest?

NIMBY said:

I've never wasted my time on these science deniers and those who bastardize science, since I'm a real scientist.

Let these science deniers support pruitt, trump, etc. into the 2018 and 2020 elections. That really is all that matters ...

Click to expand...

What sciece do you do? What is your area of experteese?

Tim the plumber said:

Can you explain why the cold areas of the tree's range are being equally effected by this pest?

Click to expand...

Are they? What I've read indicated them spreading east, but I haen't read that the norther range of the Tamarack is equally affected.

spud_meister said:

Are they? What I've read indicated them spreading east, but I haen't read that the norther range of the Tamarack is equally affected.

Click to expand...

That's because your prophets of AGW only tell you what fits the agenda. They ignore anything contrary to their agenda.

Threegoofs said:

True. And if that loser is mankind, no big deal. Some other species will occupy its niche.

Click to expand...

We'll be fine. We're quite adaptable.

Threegoofs said:

Seems if you were actually interested, you wouldn’t care about if *I* had studied on this, but if studies actually exist.

And if you actually cared, and had minimal competence in the area, you would have looked.

I can only conclude you either are incompetent, lazy, or trolling.

Click to expand...

So asking you to prove your thesis of this thread by holding you to the scientific standard you where so gung ho about when you started this thread, is somehow "trolling"


Asking you to back up your position with science, is now "trolling"?


You need some thicker skin my friend.


if you cant prove your contention, it would be your incompetence, you being lazy. you made the claims, you even set the bar, I held you to it.

ReverendHellh0und said:

So asking you to prove your thesis of this thread by holding you to the scientific standard you where so gung ho about when you started this thread, is somehow "trolling"


Asking you to back up your position with science, is now "trolling"?


You need some thicker skin my friend.


if you cant prove your contention, it would be your incompetence, you being lazy. you made the claims, you even set the bar, I held you to it.

Click to expand...

Center mass hit.

It seems there's less to this than meets the eye. It's not a new problem. It's only a newly-hyped problem.

Eastern Larch Beetle FIDL - Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry

https://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/fidls/elb/elb.htm


Extensive mortality of tamarack caused by the eastern larch beetle in Alaska. The eastern larch beetle, Dendroctonus simplex LeConte (fig. 1, inset), is a native North American insect that colonizes the phloem of the main stem, exposed roots, and larger branches of tamarack, Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch. The adult ...

Eastern Larch Beetle S.J. Seybold[SUP]1[/SUP], M.A. Albers[SUP]2[/SUP], and S.A. Katovich[SUP]3[/SUP] [SUP]1[/SUP]Assistant Professor, Departments of Entomology and Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108. [SUP]2[/SUP]Forest Health Specialist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Grand Rapids, MN, 55744. [SUP]3[/SUP]Forest Entomologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, St. Paul, MN, 55108.

The eastern larch beetle, Dendroctonus simplex LeConte (fig. 1, inset), is a native North American insect that colonizes the phloem of the main stem, exposed roots, and larger branches of tamarack, Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch. The adult beetles aggregate on standing and fallen trees or stumps, tunnel through the bark, and feed and mate in the phloem. Relatively healthy trees can be attacked and killed by this beetle, and since 1970 extensive outbreaks have been recorded throughout North America (fig. 1). Previously, D. simplex was considered to be a secondary pest that attacked only trees that had been predisposed through advanced age, or through injury or physiological stress from defoliation, mechanical damage, fire, drought, or flooding. Distribution and Hosts Eastern larch beetles can be found throughout the range of tamarack, which includes most of northeastern and north-central North America, western Canada, and Alaska (fig. 2). . . . The eastern larch beetle is a potential risk to stands of nine species of native larch in eastern Siberia and to limited stands of native and exotic larches in Europe. The beetle could be inadvertently introduced into Eurasia through international shipments of barked wood products or solid wood packing materials. History of North American Infestations In eastern North America, the eastern larch beetle was reported infesting trees as early as 1897 (West Virginia), 1915 (New York), 1926 (Quebec), and 1939 (Nova Scotia). During the late 1970s and early 1980s, extensive outbreaks throughout that region resulted in mortality of nearly 600 million board feet (1.4 million m3 ) of tamarack. In the north-central region, eastern larch beetles were documented killing substantial numbers of trees as early as 1883 (Ontario), 1888 (Michigan), and 1938 (Minnesota). Notable outbreaks occurred in the 1960s (Ontario) and in the 1980s (Michigan and Minnesota). Most recently (2000-2001), eastern larch beetles killed large numbers of tamarack in northern Minnesota in stands that had no obvious history of defoliation, drought, or flooding injury. In western Canada, localized infestations have been reported since 1946. In Alaska, tamarack mortality associated with the beetle occurred between 1974 and 1980 over an area of 8 million acres (3.3 million ha) in the Tanana River Drainage and throughout the central portion of the State. In some areas of interior Alaska, 50 percent of the tamarack were killed in just over 2 years; between 70 and 99 percent of the dead trees were in diameter classes greater than 4 inches (10 cm). . . .

spud_meister said:

There's a European one that can fly a 2 m/s for several hours. I can't find any information about the one in the OP though. Do you have anyway of proving a beetle that has evolved to disperse by flight can't actually fly very far?

Anyway, here's an in-depth read that shows just how climate change and forestry practices have contributed to the spread of the beetle:Pine Beetle Epidemic - National Geographic Magazine

Click to expand...

They can fly as far as they need to, not as far as you think that they should. The interesting thing about that 15" spacing is that it's the perfect distance for the best growth in a stand of timber. Without all the fire control and the prevention of thinning, the various species of "bark beetles" help to maintain that spacing. But it's done without benefit to us. We can replace that process of killing of tress at a 15" spacing that "bark beetles" carry out with good thinning practices that allow us to salvage some of that material for chips, instead of having it rot on the ground or burn. Good forest practices mimic the natural process, but instead of rotting or burning, the "removed" wood is used for something beneficial. Get us back to good forest management practices and you'll see home prices drop as material costs drop. You'll see a wide array of other product's prices drop as the raw materials they use drops in price.

faithful_servant said:

They can fly as far as they need to, not as far as you think that they should. The interesting thing about that 15" spacing is that it's the perfect distance for the best growth in a stand of timber. Without all the fire control and the prevention of thinning, the various species of "bark beetles" help to maintain that spacing. But it's done without benefit to us. We can replace that process of killing of tress at a 15" spacing that "bark beetles" carry out with good thinning practices that allow us to salvage some of that material for chips, instead of having it rot on the ground or burn. Good forest practices mimic the natural process, but instead of rotting or burning, the "removed" wood is used for something beneficial. Get us back to good forest management practices and you'll see home prices drop as material costs drop. You'll see a wide array of other product's prices drop as the raw materials they use drops in price.

Click to expand...

"...The interesting thing about that 15" spacing is that it's the perfect distance for the best
growth in a stand of timber. ...Get us back to good forest management practices and you'll see
home prices drop as material costs drop."

Hmmm, What sort of mental image do people posting on this thread have of stands of tamarack trees?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larix_laricina

Some time ago I put up a thread about quaking bogs and methane bubbles. I was pretty sure all the
people in the media going on and on about exploding methane bubbles never set foot on a quaking bog.
There was a YouTube that accompanied the thread that clearly showed a quaking bog but it was billed
as a methane bubble about to burst like a ripe pimple on some teenagers nose. So why am I going
on about bogs when this thread is about tamarack trees? Because that's where you find them growing
that's why. Tamaracks are gnarly twisted short stunted affairs - I could be wrong, but I doubt that
they're ever used for commercial lumber.



You can find examples of large robust specimens:



But what you generally see in Wisconsin and Minnesota are those scrubby things growing in the bogs
as you drive on by.

If you follow the wikipedia link above you will find that there are all sorts of pests; saw flies fungus and
so forth that result in outbreaks of dead trees.

The foregoing is not a comment on whether or not the degree or so of global warming we've seen since
1850 has had any effect on pests infesting tamarack trees in Minnesota.

faithful_servant said:

They can fly as far as they need to, not as far as you think that they should. The interesting thing about that 15" spacing is that it's the perfect distance for the best growth in a stand of timber. Without all the fire control and the prevention of thinning, the various species of "bark beetles" help to maintain that spacing. But it's done without benefit to us. We can replace that process of killing of tress at a 15" spacing that "bark beetles" carry out with good thinning practices that allow us to salvage some of that material for chips, instead of having it rot on the ground or burn. Good forest practices mimic the natural process, but instead of rotting or burning, the "removed" wood is used for something beneficial. Get us back to good forest management practices and you'll see home prices drop as material costs drop. You'll see a wide array of other product's prices drop as the raw materials they use drops in price.

Click to expand...

I’m sure someone will inform the Tamarack trees in MN to grow more than 15’ apart.