Most of this range of observations is from hemlock stands, there’s a few that were found up on the trail ridgeline where the hemlocks give way to a more typical eastern deciduous forest (maples, beech, and oaks along with the hemlocks & birch) but the vast majority were down in the hemlock stands along the river.
Hopefully iNat can help researchers when it comes to documenting species in places like these, fungi are ephemeral and its so hard to capture everything in just one trip.
here’s one hemlock stand where i saw a bunch, though this is only a small selection of what was there
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?nelat=44.691518926213774&nelng=-73.0858826644065&place_id=any&subview=map&swlat=44.68373869232863&swlng=-73.0951952941062&user_id=charlie&verifiable=any&iconic_taxa=Fungi
Very cool. I just love a hemlock stand. It could be because its my obsession, but I really do feel like fungi are one area where citizen scientists and sites like iNat can really be a help to science & our greater understand of the world. Especially because genetic sequencing is becoming more accessible.
I agree!
Actually a logged forest in a state of regrowth is incredibly good biodiverse habitat. Of course, it’s good to preserve some old forest for those creatures that prefer it, but the regrowth areas will be far more species-rich in flora and fauna.
If the natives were able to be just as adaptable, why aren’t they there? If they require human intervention to establish them, aren’t we telling nature she doesn’t know best what will work on that site? And it is inaccurate to say we are more willing to grant beneficial status to nonnatives. Our motivation is to ask people to consider when a nonnative is doing a good job and requires no inputs, that it not be derides or ripped out. We are asking that all plants be evaluated on their holistic contributions in today’s overdeveloped and overheated surroundings. The story of the planet is adapting to change and to say there is only one correct plant palette is an attempt to deny that she is evolving right now in response to our terrible abuse of her resources. Leave more wild areas, fight pollution, cool the earth. Can we please not victimize ornamental plants as a convenient scapegoat? Can we come together that we need all the tools at our disposal in these desperate times? Most of my property (118 acres is land I was able to buy cheaply because it had been logged., it is not on a paved road and is in an economically depressed area. When asked what I intended to do with it, my answer was “listen and learn from it”. It has taught me many valuable lessons, and the value of plants in recovery, regardless of their origins.
Perhaps you can add your obs to iNat.
Show us what you have learnt?
Actually that’s exactly my point. Yes, they may well be MUCH more species-rich… but with species (ruderal, generalist, opportunist…) that have little or nothing to do with the original forest habitat. Nothing wrong with them in their place of course, and in degraded, man-manipulated areas they may even have an important role to play in setting off a renaturalisation process. But they have little or nothing to do with woodland or forest habitats and lack the conservation value of the species that have been lost.
It’s important to bear in mind that in an old-growth forest, small areas of regrowth will occur naturally in any case, for example, where a large tree dies/falls, or in mountainous areas after an avalanche. These clearings give a natural and important boost to the forest biodiversity, without the disturbance and large-scale damage caused by logging.
There are many patches of forest in my area that had a diverse understory of native plants. The native plants were established and nature did know what worked for that site. No human disturbance; no direct habitat destruction; non-native invasive plants were the source of degradation at those sites. Privet, English ivy, Nandina, kudzu, autumn & thorny olives.
I work in pristine saltmarshes in the southeastern U.S. Native plant communities are established. They don’t need human intervention. And yet Brazilian pepper can invade and destroy habitat. The concept that non-natives only grow in already-degraded areas is blatantly false.
Don’t tell me nature wants non-native plants when flocks of Cedar Waxwings are falling from the sky because they didn’t co-evolve to recognize Nandina berries as toxic.
The mods already told you this is not an appropriate place for you to be doing this
this is dangerous logic, especially when you are also conflating treatment of invasive species with humans. Very dangerous logic.
i think logged patches can add to the diversity of a broader forest area, when managed carefully and when not too much happens at once. But i would not call it good or biodiverse habitat, just different and not always inherently harmful. In any event, if you think logging is good habitat, why are you opposed to cutting down flammable monoculture eucalyptus stands?
@jcarolreese @conserv I understand your desire to provide a rebuttal to folks publicly critiquing an article you contributed to, and you have.
However, it seems like we’re at the point where some of the discussion related to the Garden Rant piece isn’t being constructive any longer and it might be best to agree to disagree rather than continue trading blows.
Let’s keep the discssion focused on the original question, please. Thanks!
To that end i wanted to draw attention to this field:
(obviously you can put different plant species in).
Right now of course it isn’t in any way systematic, people just tag what plant they see the pollinator on. But if one wanted to filter by place and user or by a project, and make a concerted effort at each flower type, one could build a pretty good catalog of which pollinator used each flower type. From there it wouldn’t be hard to get the average number for native and non native plants, or perhaps also divide by other factors (locally vs regionally native, wild seed vs cultivars, invasives vs non-invasive landscape plants, etc).
I definitely make an effort when I catch an animal on a flower to put it in pollinator associations (https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/pollinator-associations) and do my best to put what type of plant its on. Even if I can’t fully ID the plant (I’m certainly no botanist) I figure at least even throwing Asteraceae or what have you on it is helpful.
I definitely need to do this more.
Another massive habitat destroyer that I can think of is dense stands of multiflora rose/amur honeysuckle/buckthorn that just choke forest floors that would otherwise would have more open understories. I know of spots where spring ephemerals flourish in massive abundance, providing vital early sustenance for pollinators - just as far as you can see, stands of Trout Lily, Squirrel Corn, Trillum, Jack-in-the-pulpit, Foamflower, Spring Beauty, etc. These plants can’t compete with invasive bushes that leaf out early and prevent sunlight from hitting the forest floor, and these habitats are just completely lacking where the invasives aren’t controlled.
I know that I, personally, would be sad if I couldn’t go out in the spring in Appalachia and couldn’t experience these flowers.
I didn’t know about that project, thank you! I will add to that moving forward. Though i see it uses ‘associated species with name lookup’ not ‘interaction-> pollinating flower of’ which makes this tricky.
Multiflora rose is probably my least favorite plant species ever. Not only that it’s invasive, it grabs on and rips skin and can be an eye safety risk and sometimes it’s literally impenetrable. It also seems to support way more ticks than other places (i know this is an issue with barberry as well).
yes, to answer your specific question, with our BIMBY project (https://inaturalist.ca/projects/butterflies-in-my-backyard-bimby-project) I am working on a method to match the insect, in this case butterflies and caterpillars to plants.
It’s truly awful, and I say that as a person that is a fan of ornamental roses. Plus it acts as a massive vector for Rose Rosette Disease so just having multiflora roses near your property means there might come a time when you have to aggressively rip up entire ornamental plants if they’re contracted it (since there is no known treatment.) I can imagine this is worse for our native rose populations where they occur (I suppose there’s probably be studies, I’d have to look and see but I just don’t have the time to do that atm)
with regards to butterflies, i would argue they are not 100% dependent on native plants… as most flowering plants will have the nectar for food which is what they are after. HOWEVER, as the HOST plant to lay eggs on and for the caterpillars, I do believe NATIVE plants is absolutely key.