Butternut trees going extinct

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
Mayabird
Storytime!
Posts: 5970
Joined: 2003-11-26 04:31pm
Location: IA > GA

Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Mayabird »

Fungus destroying butternut trees in Iowa
Population drops 90 to 94 percent in 20 years

by Rick Smith


CEDAR RAPIDS — Part way down a wooded slope above a tiny, unnamed stream, a bleak tale is playing out nearly without notice.

Here, at this spot on the property of the Indian Creek Nature Center, a scattering of butternut trees has been coming down, one by one, in the onward march of a killing fungus known as butternut canker.

Rich Patterson, the center’s longtime director, wrote a piece 18 years ago for American Forests magazine called “Butternut Blues,” in which he documented the already-apparent start of the demise of the butternut tree in Iowa and elsewhere in a habitat that stretches from Iowa to the Atlantic Ocean and to the start of the Deep South.

Twenty years ago, the Nature Center’s 300 acres, about half forested, featured about 100 butternuts, estimates Patterson. Today the number is down to 25, and falling.

The story is as grim statewide, where a tree survey in the last few years has left the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to conclude that Iowa has lost 90 to 94 percent of its butternut trees since 1990. The recent survey concluded that 80,000 butternuts, plus or minus 40,000 trees, are still here, down from 1.5 million in 1990, reports Aron Flickinger, a DNR special projects forester and the agency’s butternut specialist.

Butternut trees are so decimated in Iowa that Flickinger doesn’t bother walking into a woods in hopes of finding one. Instead, in his current effort to identify and study the remaining butternuts, he sent an inquiry to entities like the Indian Creek Nature Center, asking them to steer him to butternuts that they know about.

His resulting examination of about 100 trees did not turn up one without the canker fungus, he reports. Even so, he says a few trees appeared to have the capacity to heal, and it is those trees to which he is looking to take material to graft into the start of new trees.

Evidence of the butternut canker’s telltale wounds in the trunks of some of the Indian Creek Nature Center’s butternuts was on full display last week. There is little chance of saving a tree from the fungus if and once the fungus has spread and created numerous cankers that then essentially strangle the tree’s trunk, the center’s Patterson says.

The approach to saving the butternut is to keep in place seemingly healthy trees and even those with some evidence of the fungus in hopes that some resistant or resilient trees might survive. In fact, Canada has declared the butternut an endangered species and has adopted regulations to keep butternuts in place until it is clear they are dying.

As part of Iowa’s butternut project, Flickinger says the scattering of about 20 butternuts in one timbered piece of Nature Center property is the largest cluster of large butternuts he has found in the state.

“That’s not saying much,” Patterson says.

He also has studied a couple of butternuts along railroad tracks near Carver-Hawkeye Arena at the University of Iowa in Iowa City and some in Delaware County.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, the butternut canker fungus, first identified in 1967 in southwestern Wisconsin, initially infects trees through buds, the scars left on stems once leaves fall and possibly openings in a tree’s bark. The fungus is then carried down the tree’s trunk, forming cankers or localized dead areas that eventually surround a trunk, killing it.

“You get enough of these sores and it blocks the plumbing of the tree and kills it,” says Patterson. “It prevents the tree from sending nutrients and moisture and all up and down it.”

At the ready in his Nature Center office is a profile of the butternut in the book, “A Natural History of North American Trees” by Donald C. Peattie, a favorite of Patterson’s.

In his profile, Peattie notes that the butternut, often called the white walnut, has walnut-like nuts of oblong shape that leave a stain on the hand that only vanishes over time. He also notes that many Confederate soldiers in the Civil War wore uniforms colored a golden brown from the dye of the butternut, and so were referred to as “Butternuts.”

As Peattie says, “So the very name of the tree has become a synonym for tattered glory.”

Patterson says the passing of the butternut has gone largely unnoticed because the butternut is a rural tree, not a city tree. Farms kids know the butternut, city kids don’t, he says.

The DNR’s Flickinger agrees and says the passing of the butternut is “one of those quiet stories that goes untold.”

The eulogy, though, has not been written. Among current research efforts, the Iowa DNR is using a federal grant to work with state agencies in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont and scientists at three universities to try to harvest the genetic material from the best native butternuts and to reproduce it in the hopes of creating a butternut that is resistant to the canker fungus.

In these efforts to date, Flickinger says he has planted 300 butternuts from seed in the Loess Hills in western Iowa and about 100 in the Yellow River State Forest in northeast Iowa. Plans call for planting new trees from grafts in the near future.

In the bigger picture, the Nature Center’s Patterson points to Dutch elm disease that has killed elms and the borer of Chinese origin that has killed and is killing millions of ashes and has the state of Iowa on high alert. Then there’s chestnut blight, oak wilt and more.

“What are we going to be left with, Siberian elms and just junk trees?” asks Patterson. “It’s almost like, what do you plant anymore, everything’s got a disease?”

Even so, he says the forest has a great ability to “buffer” itself.

“You got, who knows, 30 species of trees,” he says. “If one gets wiped out, others will kind of take its place. But to have so many diseases and insects of foreign origin in a relatively short period of time is pretty rough on the forest.”
Saw this article in the paper today. Since this is an Iowa paper it of course focused on the trees locally, but the 90-95% mortality figure is across the tree's entire range. It's already practically extinct in the Carolinas.

On a side note, Indian Creek Nature Center is a couple miles from where I live. Also I don't want to hear any of you jackasses saying, "There's absolutely no problem and nothing to worry about because MAGIC FUTURE GENETIC ENGINEERING will magically revive the species magically." If saying something along those lines was your first impulse, you are a jackass and you need to find some human emotions somewhere.

Link
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!

SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 23347
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by LadyTevar »

Is there any way of removing/limiting the cankers as they form to keep them from encircling the tree?
Image
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
User avatar
Steel
Jedi Master
Posts: 1122
Joined: 2005-12-09 03:49pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Steel »

LadyTevar wrote:Is there any way of removing/limiting the cankers as they form to keep them from encircling the tree?
As a PhD student in epidemiological modelling, strategies that revolve around waiting for symptoms and then trying to deal with infected hosts are generally doomed to failure even if perfectly implemented.

I'm not familiar with this pathosystem, but things do not look good for the tree.

I'd be especially leery of saying that genetic engineering will solve all problems. Consider that new varieties of resistant wheat are brought out every couple of years, and the result is always the same:

Year 1: Disease levels drop, yields increase.
Year 2: Pathogens overcome resistance, disease levels are either high again or you get one more year as the new pathogen strains take time to bulk up and shaft you in year 3.

This kind of cycle is bad enough in things that get harvested, but in species that are there year round and not possible to continually replace with new varieties the situation is worse still.
Apparently nobody can see you without a signature.
KhorneFlakes
Padawan Learner
Posts: 371
Joined: 2011-04-23 12:27pm

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by KhorneFlakes »

I don't know why anyone would go MAGIC GENETIC ENGINEERING IN A FEW YEARS LULZ. I mean seriously? More like four to five decades, and it depends on whether genetic engineering is freed from the paranoid restrictions currently placed on it. Eh.

If they do die out, I'm hoping they have some in isolated gardens or something, so that one day they might be able to replant them after they figure out how to either kill the fungi or give the trees resistance to the fungi. I don't see why people think MAGIC GENETIC ENGINEERING immediately upon seeing species going extinct. You work with what you have and improve and augment your methods as time passes, not sit there and go MAGIC GENETIC ENGINEERING and hope largely undeveloped technologies (medical and "typical") will somehow come to you in a few years.

Idiots. That's what makes me feel like stealing people's lungs. And then not giving them back.
User avatar
Mayabird
Storytime!
Posts: 5970
Joined: 2003-11-26 04:31pm
Location: IA > GA

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Mayabird »

It's happened on this board before and it is very obnoxious when CS majors who couldn't distinguish a plant from dyed processed corn syrup start saying that their compu-magic will fix things so don't worry about it. For instance, not-so-future magic tech will make us all immortal - nevermind that life expectancies for younger generations now are expected to decline due to obesity and already are doing so in certain fatter regions.

Anyway, since there are people working on it I imagine the best case scenario for butternuts is to become like the American chestnut - the vast majority wiped out, but a few safe and clean colonies and rare lucky survivors (all told, maybe several hundred out of an initial population in the billions) carefully protected while a breeding program tries to make resistant trees that can maybe be used to partially repopulate the species. They've been working on this for decades and might be getting close now, but testing is ongoing.

Incidentally, the American Chestnut Foundation seems to have the same pet peeve as me.
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!

SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Ryan Thunder »

I don't mean to sound callous, but as an honest question, what makes this tree worth preserving?

Note: I'm not trying to suggest that we shouldn't bother, I just want to hear your thoughts.
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Spoonist »

Another reason for a gov funded seed bank.
Wing Commander MAD
Jedi Knight
Posts: 665
Joined: 2005-05-22 10:10pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Wing Commander MAD »

Mayabird wrote:It's happened on this board before and it is very obnoxious when CS majors who couldn't distinguish a plant from dyed processed corn syrup start saying that their compu-magic will fix things so don't worry about it. For instance, not-so-future magic tech will make us all immortal - nevermind that life expectancies for younger generations now are expected to decline due to obesity and already are doing so in certain fatter regions.

Anyway, since there are people working on it I imagine the best case scenario for butternuts is to become like the American chestnut - the vast majority wiped out, but a few safe and clean colonies and rare lucky survivors (all told, maybe several hundred out of an initial population in the billions) carefully protected while a breeding program tries to make resistant trees that can maybe be used to partially repopulate the species. They've been working on this for decades and might be getting close now, but testing is ongoing.

Incidentally, the American Chestnut Foundation seems to have the same pet peeve as me.
Who pray tell might those be? LionElJohnson? Singular Intellect? Starglider? Those are the only notable people who expressed any trans-humanist views with anything regarding frequency and IIRC only Starglider fits the Comp Sci label, and his ideas/posts always seem far more nuanced and intelligent than what you are attributing to those responsible for these claims, not to mention I don't ever recall him makeing any claims about magically recovering extinct species with genetic engineering.
User avatar
Covenant
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4451
Joined: 2006-04-11 07:43am

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Covenant »

In the bigger picture, the Nature Center’s Patterson points to Dutch elm disease that has killed elms and the borer of Chinese origin that has killed and is killing millions of ashes and has the state of Iowa on high alert. Then there’s chestnut blight, oak wilt and more.

“What are we going to be left with, Siberian elms and just junk trees?” asks Patterson. “It’s almost like, what do you plant anymore, everything’s got a disease?”
This is how I feel too. We've lost nearly all of our prettier trees around here due to the endless waves of unstoppable diseases, parasites, and so forth. We used to have tons of beautiful paper birches around here and it feels like I haven't seen one in years and years. In fact I may not have. Not content with eating my trees, we've got all manner of shitty insects digging through the roses and anything else that gives you a little joy, so it feels like you're just stuck with junk trees, weed trees, and other crappy garbage.

We need to see if we can get some butternuts to grow far enough outside of these areas that we can build up a small stock. I'm glad that Canada is taking some kind of action.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28822
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Broomstick »

Ryan Thunder wrote:I don't mean to sound callous, but as an honest question, what makes this tree worth preserving?
1) The nuts are edible. Although not commercially produced right now, they do represent a potential food source.

2) They are a natural dyestuff. Again, while not commercially used right now they might be so in the future.

3) What we learn in saving this tree may be applicable to, at some future point, saving a more commercially important tree.

4) Genetic diversity is good (admittedly, that's my opinion and an arguable point)
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Singular Intellect
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2392
Joined: 2006-09-19 03:12pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Singular Intellect »

What scientifically based models of the environment and planetary ecosystems are being used to determine whether the extinction of a particular form of life is a critically damaging event that cannot be compensated for by other forms of life filling empty niches?

Environments and species diversity are not static models; they are constantly shifting and dynamic systems that are much more redundant than people seem to give them credit for.
"Now let us be clear, my friends. The fruits of our science that you receive and the many millions of benefits that justify them, are a gift. Be grateful. Or be silent." -Modified Quote
User avatar
salm
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 10296
Joined: 2002-09-09 08:25pm

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by salm »

Broomstick wrote: 1) The nuts are edible. Although not commercially produced right now, they do represent a potential food source.
Not commercially produced? They´ve been selling them in supermarkets for a couple of years now. At least around here. I like them quite a lot more than regular pumpkins.

<edit>Eh nonsense. I just looked it up and saw that there are also a type of walnuts called butternuts. The article talking about trees should have given it away. :) </edit>
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Simon_Jester »

Singular Intellect wrote:What scientifically based models of the environment and planetary ecosystems are being used to determine whether the extinction of a particular form of life is a critically damaging event that cannot be compensated for by other forms of life filling empty niches?

Environments and species diversity are not static models; they are constantly shifting and dynamic systems that are much more redundant than people seem to give them credit for.
It is very bad practice to shrug your shoulders about having a part of a system get smashed to bits when you do not know how the system works.

You do not know how the ecology of forests in the American midwest work. Therefore, it is a bad idea to assume that having all the butternut trees in those forests die will be OK. It might be OK, but then again it might be catastrophic. Or, as is most likely, it might be "merely damaging."*

Past experience shows that the loss of one species will be, on average, bad. You do not have grounds to demand a model proving that this will be true for this specific case before funding preservation efforts, because there's a very important argument from statistics here.

So the safer and much smarter assumption is that yes, losing a particular species is in all likelihood bad, not that something else will replace its role, when you don't know what its role is or what exists that could conceivably fill that role.
________

*For example, a number of animal and plant species that benefit from butternut trees will be in trouble. The next bad thing that happens to those species will hit them harder as a result, and may drive them into extinction over part or all of their ranges. This process will most likely repeat, until many species are found over narrower ranges, or have themselves gone extinct, and the local ecosystem will wind up being more of a monoculture than it was before because the surviving species will recolonize the areas opened up.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Singular Intellect
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2392
Joined: 2006-09-19 03:12pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Singular Intellect »

Simon_Jester wrote:It is very bad practice to shrug your shoulders about having a part of a system get smashed to bits when you do not know how the system works.
Strange; last time I checked the scientific consensus is that 99.9% of all life that has existed has gone extinct. Do you dispute this assertion?

Because the planetary ecosystem model I'm seeing is "Extinction is normal" and hundreds of millions of years of biological diversity, evolution, survival and extinction events is a very persuasive model of 'it works'.
You do not know how the ecology of forests in the American midwest work. Therefore, it is a bad idea to assume that having all the butternut trees in those forests die will be OK. It might be OK, but then again it might be catastrophic. Or, as is most likely, it might be "merely damaging."*
Define 'damaging' and 'catastrophic' in this context. The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event was arguably 'damaging' and 'catastrophic'. I'm not losing sleep over it, and I doubt anyone else is either.
Past experience shows that the loss of one species will be, on average, bad. You do not have grounds to demand a model proving that this will be true for this specific case before funding preservation efforts, because there's a very important argument from statistics here.
Which again leads to my question of what scientific model is being used to determine when and where extinctions are acceptable, given the event is a common and normal pattern established hundreds of millions of years before humans came along.

If you subscribe to the position 'extinction is bad', I expect you to back up this assertion. I've certainly backed up mine that extinction is both normal and part of the pattern of biodiversity on our planet, as hundeds of millions of years worth of history testifies to.
So the safer and much smarter assumption is that yes, losing a particular species is in all likelihood bad, not that something else will replace its role, when you don't know what its role is or what exists that could conceivably fill that role.
Hundreds of millions of years of life surviving with extinction as a routine and normal outcome for most species that ever existed seems to contradict your hand wringing over the severity of species going extinct.

If you want to weep tears over the issue, be my guest. I'm not interested in the emotional impact or personal taste over whether you or anyone else 'likes' extinction events.

I'm interested in what scientific model is being used to determine whether any particular extinction event is 'premature' or 'bad', and relative to what.
*For example, a number of animal and plant species that benefit from butternut trees will be in trouble. The next bad thing that happens to those species will hit them harder as a result, and may drive them into extinction over part or all of their ranges. This process will most likely repeat, until many species are found over narrower ranges, or have themselves gone extinct, and the local ecosystem will wind up being more of a monoculture than it was before because the surviving species will recolonize the areas opened up.
Still waiting on some kind of objective, scientific model that demostrates the reasoning of when and where extinctions are acceptable.
"Now let us be clear, my friends. The fruits of our science that you receive and the many millions of benefits that justify them, are a gift. Be grateful. Or be silent." -Modified Quote
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Butternut trees going extinct

Post by Simon_Jester »

Singular Intellect wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:It is very bad practice to shrug your shoulders about having a part of a system get smashed to bits when you do not know how the system works.
Strange; last time I checked the scientific consensus is that 99.9% of all life that has existed has gone extinct. Do you dispute this assertion?

Because the planetary ecosystem model I'm seeing is "Extinction is normal" and hundreds of millions of years of biological diversity, evolution, survival and extinction events is a very persuasive model of 'it works'.
...Do you actually know anything about biology, or do you just make shit up to justify disagreeing with people?

Look, if your standard of "the ecosystem works" is "we still have an oxygen atmosphere," then yeah, losing a tree species doesn't really change all that much. If you care about things like marshes dying off and screwing up local hydrology, or biodiversity collapsing and turning swathes of wilderness into monocultures that are vulnerable to the next random disease or whatever that comes down the pike, then yes, it matters. Don't take my word for it. Ask the people who know their shit.
Define 'damaging' and 'catastrophic' in this context. The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event was arguably 'damaging' and 'catastrophic'. I'm not losing sleep over it, and I doubt anyone else is either.
Well, it'd probably be less catastrophic than having practically all life on Earth destroyed by a giant comet. I'll grant that.

The fact that you, personally, cannot perceive any importance of any ecological crisis less significant than "giant asteroid crushes nearly all life on Earth..." Well, that disqualifies you from having an opinion, I gotta say.
Which again leads to my question of what scientific model is being used to determine when and where extinctions are acceptable, given the event is a common and normal pattern established hundreds of millions of years before humans came along.
No. This is stark gibbering nonsense, a statement reflecting such profound ignorance that you ought to have kept silent of matters of which you know nothing.

Extinctions of the kind we now see in the world are not a normal part of the pattern. They are caused by catastrophic events which break patterns, like the Permian extinction. Or the Cretaceous extinction. In the modern world, what causes these extinctions is invasive species- diseases, parasites, and competitor species move across the world far more easily than could happen without human intervention. Local species which haven't spent thousands of years evolving to cope with the new stressor, and which are already under other forms of stress due to (mostly human-caused) pollution, habitat loss, and the like have trouble surviving under those conditions.

The same thing happened to our own species with the mass die-offs of humans in the New World due to infectious diseases.

None of this is natural, any more than Hoover Dam or the Empire State Building is natural- it is literally an artifact, a thing made to happen by human intervention, because we get sloppy and let it happen as a side-effect of our trying to do other things, and don't put in the effort to avoid doing it by mistake.

And the relative handful of people who actually care enough to not adopt a policy of homicidal negligence toward the environment we still depend on have enough trouble without twits like you wandering into the conversation and breezily assuming that because the dinosaurs going extinct turned out OK, it must not matter to us what happens to butternut trees.
If you subscribe to the position 'extinction is bad', I expect you to back up this assertion. I've certainly backed up mine that extinction is both normal and part of the pattern of biodiversity on our planet, as hundeds of millions of years worth of history testifies to.
Earthquakes are part of the "pattern" of geology on Earth. That doesn't mean earthquakes are good. Forest fires are part of the pattern; that doesn't mean huge fires that burn down enormous tracts of land and threaten the homes of thousands are good. Avalanches are normal; that doesn't mean we'd be better off with your house getting buried in a thousand tons of mud.

You cannot generalize from "species have gone extinct" to "therefore, it is not a problem when a species goes extinct." It's pretty damn stupid to even go to "therefore, it might not be a problem and the burden of proof is on the people worrying about it." Because this flies in the face of what the actual ecologists know and you don't.

I may not be a specialist in this area- but I'm not fool enough to presume that the specialists wouldn't care if they were real scientists; if I see them worrying about tree populations collapsing, I take them seriously.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Post Reply