Indigenous

[wrsni]

Evening. Ok so when does a tree become indigenous, how long does it need to be on these shores before it is regarded as being from here. Ta.

 

In what context do you ask the question, practical or purely for discussion?

[woodyguy]

So is scots pine native when it has been re-introduced hundreds of years later to all of England? What about foxes and red squirrels that have been re-introduced many times ie most are from continental stock. Complex picture.

[Bren.]

I was talking to an ecologist about this a while ago and apparently for a plant to be considered naturalised it only has to have a self sustaining population. i.e. that it doesn't require re-introduction to the wild to continue to survive. His suggestion was that if it reproduces for 3 generations that's enough. It doesn't need to be here for years and years. Plants which require continual re-introduction to survive are referred to as cultivated.

 

Sycamore and sweet chestnut are definitely naturalised unless you believe what Ted Green says that is. His view is that sycamore is native and even refers to it as Celtic Maple. Last time is saw him speak he claimed to have proof of it. Not sure how he gets around its absence within the fossil record but you never know.

 

Interesting debate!

Don't care if he's right or wrong, I bloody love Ted Green.

[Bren.]

As regards the last age. I do know ecologists who would argue that the Brown Hare is non native, but the Blue is.

[Daythe trees]

Spruce pirate you are probably correct with my confusing terms, I can't seem to forget an article I read which was for gm and stated as part of it's argument that since we as a species started cultivating as a opposed to purely gathering our edible vegetation that we had effectively conducted gm. This was a few years ago and the article was obviously biased towards gm and omitted the term breeding to support this argument. But now thinking about a lab is required for gm I assume, so perhaps this is actually a modern way of altering plants and trees.

[Bren.]

No, No, No! When Joseph Mendel first conducted his research. It was purely observational and no other motive than improving the lot of man. Monsanto/Bayer etc are only interested in owning world farming. there is no suggestion in improving anything other than profit in their long term view.

Take a look at "Golden rice" studies have shown that whilst it is rich in vitamin A. Those who would most benefit from it are so vitamin deficient, that they cannot actually process the vitamins that are contained in it. Do some Google search's.

The multinationals have refused to accept this and continue to push their product.

The multi nationals are also trying to patent all of the wild strains of many different crops. When they are gone, we are completely exposed to the smallest of environmental changes. Just look at the case of Deep Water Rice. Monsanto bought out the Chinese DWR farms and converted them to GMO strains, They are more productive, but have no tolerance for flood events, but they make money, but they are vulnerable, but..........................

[madbopper]

In what context do you ask the question, practical or purely for discussion?

 

I was talking to a neighbour who's land is a SSSI and for the life of me cannot work out what natural England are trying to achieve I think if it was up to them our countryside would look very different

[Bren.]

I was talking to a neighbour who's land is a SSSI and for the life of me cannot work out what natural England are trying to achieve I think if it was up to them our countryside would look very different

Can you expand on this?

[madbopper]

Can you expand on this?

 

Don't want to expand to much as it's an ongoing situation but they would like a lot of deciduous hardwoods removed as they drop to much leaf litter !

[Bren.]

Is it SNAW?