Rewilding, Historic Irish Fauna, George Monbiot etc.

magicbastarder

i must say i enjoyed this. cat among the pigeons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdm6k1tg3Y&feature=youtu.be

Keplar240B

magicbastarder wrote: »

i must say i enjoyed this. cat among the pigeons.

...........

He says the whole of Britain is temperate rain-forest I always thought and the maps show this that's it Ireland + parts of western Britain most maps show this is the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest




He mentioned Ireland but did not elaborate regarding upland lack of forests?

Can we live without sheep?

Woodville56

magicbastarder wrote: »

i must say i enjoyed this. cat among the pigeons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdm6k1tg3Y&feature=youtu.be

Watched it too, thought I wouldn't go far into it at first but ended up watching the whole talk - rapid fire stuff and very entertaining ! Can't see him being invited for after dinner speeches at IFA or Hill Farmers do's somehow ! Ministers for AHG & Agriculture should be forced to watch that Monbiot talk, but would they care or understand ? Like in UK, influence here wielded by powerful and influential lobby groups, few of whom have biodiversity protection anywhere on their radar

Jayzesake

magicbastarder wrote: »

i must say i enjoyed this. cat among the pigeons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdm6k1tg3Y&feature=youtu.be

Monbiot at his best. And there is nothing but logic in everything he says here. He notes the level of woodland cover in the U.K. as being only a measly 12%, as opposed to a European average of 37%. What is the figure for Ireland? Last I heard, native forest accounted for only about 1% of our land area, and I would say a high proportion of that is in a very poor state, with extensive rhododendron infestation and many other problems.

So if what Monbiot is saying in this talk is valid for Britain, it's 10x more so for this island.

robp

Jayzesake wrote: »

Monbiot at his best. And there is nothing but logic in everything he says here. He notes the level of woodland cover in the U.K. as being only a measly 12%, as opposed to a European average of 37%. What is the figure for Ireland? Last I heard, native forest accounted for only about 1% of our land area, and I would say a high proportion of that is in a very poor state, with extensive rhododendron infestation and many other problems.

So if what Monbiot is saying in this talk is valid for Britain, it's 10x more so for this island.

Very nice talk. I 'd agree with most of his points and I share his passion for rewilding. I would critique two points. I don't believe landownership patterns explains the rarity of upland forests. I would argue there are compelling ecological reasons where tree cover is so rare in farmed upland areas. Look at the post-Neolithic waterlogging in blanket bogs. The second problem is he attacks wealthy landowners but that is not going to win any support in Ireland. We all know the people who farm Irish uplands are of very modest means and thus preaching class warfare is absolutely the wrong strategy.

Jayzesake

robp wrote: »

Very nice talk. I 'd agree with most of his points and I share his passion for rewilding. I would critique two points. I don't believe landownership patterns explains the rarity of upland forests. The second problem is he attacks wealthy landowners but that is not going to win any support in Ireland. We all know the people who farm Irish uplands are of very modest means and thus preaching class warfare is absolutely the wrong strategy.

Monbiot doesn't claim that it is purely the concentration of land ownership in a very few hands that is responsible for the treeless landscape prevailing in upland Britain, although that does seem to be a large part of the problem in Scotland. He argues that it is subsidised sheep-farming (through CAP payments) that is the problem in Wales, for example. He says that the average upland sheep farmer receives about £50k in payments, but comes out with only about £30k in income, meaning he/she is making a loss of £20k/annum.

I would argue there are compelling ecological reasons where tree cover is so rare in farmed upland areas. Look at the post-Neolithic waterlogging in blanket bogs.

The compelling ecological reason is pastoral farming itself. I can tell you very definitely from personal experience that, when an excess of herbivores are not present in an area, or are excluded through fencing, wild self-seeded trees begin to germinate and grow everywhere you have mature seeding trees in the vicinity. Where the latter are absent, planted native trees will happily grow. Have a look at this, for example:

An oasis of life in a depleted landscape

http://www.alansblog.org.uk/?p=4850

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

The compelling ecological reason is pastoral farming itself. I can tell you very definitely from personal experience that, when an excess of herbivores are not present in an area, or are excluded through fencing, wild self-seeded trees begin to germinate and grow everywhere you have mature seeding trees in the vicinity. Where the latter are absent, planted native trees will happily grow. Have a look at this, for example:

An oasis of life in a depleted landscape

http://www.alansblog.org.uk/?p=4850

A few fenced off enclosures in national park in Wicklow, full of regenerating trees. Just goes to show you the damage is being done by the hybrid deer there. Even in the National Park they lack the political will to sort the problem.

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

A few fenced off enclosures in national park in Wicklow, full of regenerating trees. Just goes to show you the damage is being done by the hybrid deer there. Even in the National Park they lack the political will to sort the problem.

They can't keep ignoring what's going on in the rest of Europe forever - even, at this stage, in the U.K. Much as they might try.

robp

Jayzesake wrote: »

Monbiot doesn't claim that it is purely the concentration of land ownership in a very few hands that is responsible for the treeless landscape prevailing in upland Britain, although that does seem to be a large part of the problem in Scotland. He argues that it is subsidised sheep-farming (through CAP payments) that is the problem in Wales, for example. He says that the average upland sheep farmer receives about £50k in payments, but comes out with only about £30k in income, meaning he/she is making a loss of £20k/annum.



The compelling ecological reason is pastoral farming itself. I can tell you very definitely from personal experience that, when an excess of herbivores are not present in an area, or are excluded through fencing, wild self-seeded trees begin to germinate and grow everywhere you have mature seeding trees in the vicinity. Where the latter are absent, planted native trees will happily grow. Have a look at this, for example:

An oasis of life in a depleted landscape

http://www.alansblog.org.uk/?p=4850

There is no question that pastoral farming prevents tree regeneration but the question is why are the uplands of NW Europe so drastically different from the rest of Europe. Trees grow naturally on Irish mountains but far less vigorous than say Austria or Poland.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

robp wrote: »

There is no question that pastoral farming prevents tree regeneration but the question is why are the uplands of NW Europe so drastically different from the rest of Europe. Trees grow naturally on Irish mountains but far less vigorous than say Austria or Poland.

That's all down to elevation.

recedite

I think he is saying that at the same elevation, trees on the continent are more vigorous than in Ireland. I'm not sure there is any evidence for this though. Summer growth might be better, but their winters are harsher.
I don't think any part of Ireland is above the treeline due to altitude, strictly speaking, but some mountain tops are too rocky and windy to support tall vegetation. There is a word in old norse language for the treeless terrain on high ground; "fjall" which survives in placenames as "Fell" in some parts of England such as Yorkshire. The opposite (Dahl) or Dale was a valley. Valley is the later French/Norman terminology.

Keplar240B

The last mountain I climbed was treeless about 700 meters approx
when I got to top there was a rhododendron tree growing at summit. LOL

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

An excellent book called Climate Change, Ecology and Systematics
edited by Trevor R. Hodkinson, Michael B. Jones, Stephen Waldren, John A. N. Parnell

points put that poor growth on trees in Ireland is due to wind cooling and wind blast and that the potential treeline here is not easy to define due to many factors, including our hyperoceanic climate.

robp

Casey Moldy Polygamist wrote: »

That's all down to elevation.

Irish mountains have low elevation though.

There is a paper from an ecologist in St Andrrews that is source of my ideas.

Proximity to the ocean can have both positive and negative effects for tree survival.
Across the world relict forests that were once trans-continental in their distribution depend for their continued survival on coastal refugia. The tree species that dominate the cloudzone forests of Maceronesia, the coastal redwoods of California, the Atlantic Forests of Brazil, and the Podocarp forests of New Zealand’s South Island are all examples of palaeoendemic species which once had a much wider distribution and appear to owe their survival to the particular environmental conditions that are provided by coastal sites and oceanic islands. By contrast, in the islands of the North Atlantic, oceanic conditions appear to limit tree regeneration and make forests vulnerable to human disturbance. Paradoxically, winter warmth appears to be harmful to trees in northern cool and moist oceanic conditions. There may be many reasons as to why warm winters of maritime environments can be detrimental for woody species. Insect attack, pathogenicity and metabolic dysfunction with loss of frost hardiness and over-wintering carbohydrate reserves are all possibilities. Where long, mild winters are combined with wet soil conditions, metabolic dysfunction brought about by prolonged periods of oxygen deprivation can deplete root meristems of carbohydrate reserves that are essential for avoiding post-anoxic injury when the soil profile once again becomes aerated in spring

Crawford.2005. Trees by the sea

Jayzesake

As interesting as this debate is, let's not forget the really essential points here:

a) If it weren't for people and their livestock, both in the past and at present, practically the whole of Ireland would be covered in thick, old-growth forest, inhabited by a rich fauna, including megafauna.

b) Only about 1% of the country now has a cover of native woodland. And that is nearly all secondary woodland, generally in a degraded state ranging from moderate to extreme. Practically all the megafauna, and much else, has become extinct.

c) Given the chance, i.e. if not overbrowsed, woodland would re-establish itself again over practically the whole island. That would happen at different speeds in different areas according to exposure to wind and other factors, but that is not particularly relevent; what is relevent is that it would happen.

d) We should allow that to happen over extensive areas of the country, especially less fertile areas. Doing so would bring many benefits: most importantly ecological, but also economic (through tourism), recreational, climate change mitigation and other 'ecosystem services', etc. etc.

As Monbiot says, there are zero reasons why we shouldn't be doing this, and multiple strong reasons why we should.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

As interesting as this debate is, let's not forget the really important points here:

a) If it weren't for people and their livestock, both in the past and at present, practically the whole of Ireland would be covered in thick, old-growth forest, inhabited by a rich fauna, including megafauna.

b) Only about 1% of the country now has a cover of native woodland. And that is nearly all secondary woodland, generally in a degraded state ranging from moderate to extreme. Practically all the megafauna, and much else, has become extinct.

c) Given the chance, i.e. if not overbrowsed, woodland would re-establish itself again over practically the whole island. That would happen at different speeds in different areas according to exposure to wind and other factors, but that is not particularly relevent; what is relevent is that it would happen.

d) We should allow that to happen over extensive areas of the country, especially less fertile areas. Doing so would bring many benefits: most importantly ecological, but also economic (through tourism), recreational, climate change mitigation and other 'ecosystem services', etc. etc.

As Monbiot says, there are zero reasons why we shouldn't be doing this, and multiple strong reasons why we should.

I assume the only megafauna would be wolf, wild boar?

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

I assume the only megafauna would be wolf, wild boar?

That's a whole other subject in itself, but I would certainly add Lynx, Bear and Red Deer (there are only a few of them left) to that list, and that's just for starters.

And it would also be a very big mistake to only count as native those species that were present on this island when the first human settlers arrived. Others would certainly have also arrived had it not been for earlier human-caused extinctions during the Pleistocene. Those species that were present 9,000 years ago were merely those that had managed to survive that earlier wave of extinctions, and then been in a position to migrate here. And unfortunately, for many the reprieve was temporary.

recedite

Interesting article. I think the point of it is that trees can suffer from two extremes
(a) summer drought, which is why the steppes and prairies are treeless (and also far from the sea).
(b) winter waterlogging, which is more the subject of the article.

In the case of California, that area is very dry inland, but along the coast there is a lot of mist and drizzle. Hence being near the coast is an advantage for most trees there.
In the case of NW Europe, its the opposite. It can become a bit too wet.
I have sometimes walked into a recently felled Coillte forest and noticed a rank smell in the air, the stink comes from waterlogged anaerobic or "gleyed" subsoil churned up by the machinery.

On the other hand, I don't think the author takes enough notice of the different species of trees involved. Some are better adapted to damp conditions than others. So in the case of the Pacific Northwest of USA, home of the Sitka spruce, conditions are too wet for most trees, but they thrive there, as they also do here. If you plant that same species in a drier area on the continent it won't do so well.
Also, the water runs off mountains so that the slopes may not be waterlogged, even during high rainfall. Our native oak and birch are adapted to these "temperate rainforest" conditions, including the higher mountain areas.
He mentions Iceland and the Ceide Fields in Ireland as places which were heavily wooded before humans settled there, but turned to bog subsequently. IMO this indicates that people cut down the trees, not necessarily the alternative narrative of a changing maritime climate which forced the retreat of the trees and the advance of the bogs. In other words the people were probably not so much the victims of a change in the landscape, more the cause of it.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

That's a whole other subject in itself, but I would certainly add Lynx, Bear and Red Deer (there are only a few of them left) to that list, and that's just for starters.

And it would also be a very big mistake to only count as native those species that were present on this island when the first human settlers arrived. Others would certainly have also arrived had it not been for earlier human-caused extinctions of megafauna during the Pleistocene. Those species that were present 9,000 years ago were merely those that had managed to survive that earlier wave of extinctions, and unfortunately for many the reprieve was temporary.

No expert on the mammals. Red deer brought here by the first neolithic farmers, so technically not native.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

He mentions Iceland and the Ceide Fields in Ireland as places which were heavily wooded before humans settled there, but turned to bog subsequently. IMO this indicates that people cut down the trees, not necessarily the alternative narrative of a changing maritime climate which forced the retreat of the trees and the advance of the bogs. In other words the people were probably not so much the victims of a change in the landscape, more the cause of it.

Totally agree. What is amazing is that, despite the ubiquitous chronological evidence all over the world of human settlement followed shortly afterwards (in relative terms) by drastic ecological change, there have always been those who continue to insist that our ancestors had nothing to do with it.

recedite

Capercaillie wrote: »

Red deer brought here by the first neolithic farmers, so technically not native.

Where did you hear that? Apart from anything else, the logistics of successfully transporting live wild deer on a primitive boat without drowning the crew would seem improbable...

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

No expert on the mammals. Red deer brought here by the first neolithic farmers, so technically not native.

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that before. However:

Jayzesake wrote: »

It would also be a very big mistake to only count as native those species that were present on this island when the first human settlers arrived. Others would certainly have also arrived had it not been for earlier human-caused extinctions during the Pleistocene. Those species that were present 9,000 years ago were merely those that had managed to survive that earlier wave of extinctions, and then been in a position to migrate here. And unfortunately, for many the reprieve was temporary.

By 'extinctions' I mean local, as well as global.

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

Where did you hear that? Apart from anything else, the logistics of successfully transporting live wild deer on a primitive boat without drowning the crew would seem improbable...

research led by Carden and published in Quaternary Science Reviews in 2012 showed red deer were introduced to Ireland from Britain by Neolithic people more than 5,000 years ago. After comparison of the DNA of ancient deer bone specimens held by the National Museum with those of modern deer, the Kerry herd were declared “a unique population deserving special conservation and management”.

Pretty amazing.

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Pretty amazing.

Any chance of a link to that?

Cheers

magicbastarder

an archaeologist friend of mine said that most archaeologists are obsessed with trying to overturn previous theories to make a name for themselves (and he included himself in that - this was during a discussion on the theories surrounding bog bodies). i've met ruth carden, who i like, but i think she's also looking into wolves never having been native.

magicbastarder

two other points; i've read (can't remember where) a theory that the landscape in ireland would have been more open than the 'squirrel able to cross from one side of the country to the other through the treetops' concept; that there would have been enough deer to make a bit of a patchwork of woodland; and there are also theories that the lusitanian flora could not have arrived here without human help.

Jayzesake

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've met ruth carden, who i like, but i think she's also looking into wolves never having been native.

As I wrote above, strictly basing the definition of 'native' on whether a species was here or not 9,000 years ago makes absolutely no sense ecologically. Wolves are naturally present throughout the temperate zones of the northern hemisphere. Why would they not have followed Red Deer and other prey here, unless human activities had somehow prevented that?

magicbastarder wrote: »

two other points; i've read (can't remember where) a theory that the landscape in ireland would have been more open than the 'squirrel able to cross from one side of the country to the other through the treetops' concept; that there would have been enough deer to make a bit of a patchwork of woodland;

Frans Vera is the main champion of that theory in a European context. His ideas are not borne out by the evidence from pollen cores - those taken in Ireland at least, which seem to demonstrate continuous forest.

magicbastarder wrote: »

and there are also theories that the lusitanian flora could not have arrived here without human help.

I've heard that too; it seems plausible to me, but who knows?

recedite

Here's a link to the deer paper.
Its a bit technical, but the first thing to notice is the Kerry Red Deer herd are genetically the same as Red Deer fossils found in Waterford that lived pre-Ice Age. So that is prima facie genetic evidence that these are the native deer.

Interestingly, the final haplotype unique to Ireland (IRE2) was obtained not only from a fossil specimen dated to pre-LGM from a cave in Co. Waterford (RD23;Appendix S2), but also from a number of contemporary red deer from Co. Kerry, which was the less common of the two Co.Kerry haplotypes identified (Fig. 1b,Table 2). If the molecular dataalone were examined, one could conclude from this result that the contemporary Co. Kerry population are descendants of red deer that inhabited Ireland from before the LGM and therefore survived the Devensian Glaciation.

But then they go on to look for a pattern in the expansion of the genetic population (from these very few samples) which indicates a time for the "most recent common ancestor". This they calculate at around 5000 years ago, at a time when people were already living here.

Although the Co. Kerry red deer phylogeny is not a true star-like phylogeny, having only two haplotypes separated by a single base pair mutation, this calculation allows us an impression of the approximate time period that the Co. Kerry deer were introduced into Ireland. The approximate estimate of the MRCA of the Co. Kerry deer was 4901 cal. yr BP

But the problem with this (apart from it being an estimate based on a pattern) is that MRCA is not the same as "earliest member of the species present". The MRCA for humans can be estimated at 2000-4000 years ago, but it would be nonsense to suggest that the first humans were therefore introduced to planet earth less than 4000 years ago.

Next up is a hypothesis that the pre-ice age deer match the Kerry deer because the Kerry deer were introduced from Britain by people, but the source population in Britain subsequently disappeared, and were replaced by different red deer from the continent. It seems complicated and bizarre, and there does not seem to be any evidence presented to back it up.
Also there is a secondary theory that the deer "could have swam" across. Why are they so desperate to avoid the simple explanation that the deer were in Kerry the whole time, quietly munching away on grass?

However, during the Late Glacial period,there are radiocarbon dated remains from giant deer, reindeer and red deer (Woodman et al., 1997), which re-colonised Ireland presumably from the nearest landmass which is now called Britain; these species could have swam across the Irish Sea (Stuart,1995). In comparison, there are relatively more red deer radiocarbon dated material (and, therefore, more of an indicative presence of this species) from various sites in Britain during the Late Glacial (Yalden,1999). It would seem, given no other evidence thus far to suggest otherwise, that the red deer in Ireland did not survive through the Late Pleistocene Early Holocene transition, and this species became extirpated alongside the other two re-colonising deer species, during the Younger Dryas. Therefore, the shared haplotype between contemporary Co. Kerry individuals and that of the pre- LGM fossil could be the result of pre-LGM natural movement between Ireland and Britain (Martínková et al., 2007) and subsequent ‘re-stocking’of Ireland in the Neolithic period of a haplotype that is now no longer found in Britain

Then they touch on the Lusitanian link, mainly in an attempt to discredit it.

Previous studies have highlighted a link between the Irish fauna and flora and those in southwestern Europe, both in terms ofspecies assemblages (Corbet, 1961) and genetic affiliations (Searle,2008). This was proposed to have occurred with early human traders, possibly Mesolithic. However, it is now becoming clear that this general model of species arriving in Ireland by similar means is too simplistic and unrealistic.
This Neolithic link between Ireland and Britain that we have reported here for red deer has also
recently been proposed to explain the accidental introduction of the pygmy shrew ( Sorex minutus Linnaeus, 1766) to Ireland(McDevitt et al., 2011). Based on that study and the results reported here, it seems reasonable to assume that Ireland’s nearest landmass (Britain) played a vital role in establishing its contemporary fauna and flora, and that Neolithic peoples likely transported these animals; accidentally in the case of the pygmy shrew and deliberately for the red deer.

IMO it seems likely that some wildlife (including the Red Deer) survived glaciation in warmer pockets of the south west, along with some plants including those unique to the burren and the likes of the arbutus tree.
Separately and much later, other plants and animals (possibly the shrew) may have arrived with people from the Andorra/Basque regions. Then we also have another later influx of other people from the northeast.

When the ice first retreated, the Red Deer may not have moved from the southwest, preferring to stay near the forest. Further north, the tundra fauna including reindeer, giant deer and wolves and the odd polar bear could come and go from the continental land/ice bridge. That would discourage the Kerry Red Deer from moving north too quickly. It would take a few thousand years for that forest and its particular fauna to spread northwards.

More info here on the shrews. UCD seems to be attempting to show a British link rather than the previously assumed Iberian link. Both could be true, I suppose. There is no reason to think one precludes the other. Shrews hide out in hay, which is used as a packing material as well as a fodder. So if any heavy goods or agricultural animals were being transported by boat it is likely there would have been some hay on board.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

Wolves are naturally present throughout the temperate zones of the northern hemisphere. Why would they not have followed Red Deer and other prey here, unless human activities had somehow prevented that?

Grey wolves do not need large prey like deer to survive. Unfortunately I don't have a link for that article. Just got it from newspaper srticle

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Grey wolves do not need large prey like deer to survive.

All the more reason for them to be here.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

All the more reason for them to be here.

Yip. Read an interesting article about coastal grey wolves in SW Alaska and NE Canada. They are basically live by what they find from the shore/beaches. They are found on coastal islands/areas where no deer present (or have been). Slightly smaller than the regular grey wolves in N America. Perhaps Irish wolves were like these wolves. Gone forever now though:(