Subject: RE: NANFA-L-- Riparian Vegetation was "Creek Chubs?"
From: Nick Zarlinga (njz-in-clevelandmetroparks.com)
Date: Wed Dec 01 2004 - 06:17:31 CST
><)> it. Trees aren't necessary for absorption, and
><)> the non-woody plants are a
><)> bazillion times more efficient responding to quick
><)> changes, and getting all
><)> that water and nutrients locked up in their
><)> tissue, thus slowing the rate at
><)> which the nutrients are discharged from the system
><)> as a whole (rotting
><)> instead of flowing).
What happens in the winter time when the grasses die back? Don't all the
locked up nutrients end up back in the stream? Don't woody plants lock up
more of these nutrients year round?
Nick Zarlinga
Aquarium Biologist
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
216.661.6500 ext 4485
><)> -----Original Message-----
><)> From: owner-nanfa-l-in-nanfa.org
><)>
><)> Of Todd D. Crail
><)> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:17 PM
><)> To: nanfa-l-in-nanfa.org
><)> Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Riparian Vegetation was
><)> "Creek Chubs?"
><)>
><)>
><)> ----- Original Message -----
><)> From: "Mark" <nanfa-in-jonahsaquarium.com>
><)> > Um... I need a little more info. If there are
><)> trees now, why are they
><)> > surviving?
><)>
><)> Lowering of the historic water table through the
><)> ditches and fire
><)> suppression. When you're here in December, we'll
><)> take a drive out there so
><)> you can see what huge tracts of 40 year old trees
><)> looks like. It gets
><)> creepy after driving around in it for awhile :)
><)>
><)> > Is this not land that was historically forested?
><)>
><)> The portion I will be working with was a 7 mile x
><)> 1 mile completely treeless
><)> prairie as late as the 1920's. Some areas of oak
><)> savanna measured 3 to 4
><)> trees per acre (usually black oaks on top of
><)> dunes) but this is the classic
><)> Irwin Prairie. It wasn't until the Great
><)> Depression hit and people tried
><)> again (first time in the early 1800's) to subdue
><)> the land in the 1930's that
><)> the water table was dumped. And even still... As
><)> late as the 1960's, when
><)> Prairie Ditch and Wiregrass Ditch were put in
><)> place, did the north western
><)> slat that was the classic Irwin Prairie fall into
><)> woody plant succession.
><)>
><)> TNC and ODNR have pollen cores that go back in the
><)> thousands of years, and
><)> it's been prairie for a long time. The southern
><)> Oak Openings had some
><)> succession going back and forth that was expanded
><)> into staying prairie by
><)> the native peoples (lighting fires), but the north
><)> end has just been too
><)> wet. It's 3-6 feet of sand on top of good old
><)> thick Great Black Swamp clay.
><)> It's a big grainy bowl of water :)
><)>
><)> > But is that really beneficial, if the natural
><)> processes would otherwise
><)> > lead to a forested and less "productive" system?
><)>
><)> The adjacent land is NOT going to become forested,
><)> and will always be over
><)> productive, unless we begin to figure out ways to
><)> eat up all that silt,
><)> phosphorus and nitrogen.
><)>
><)> > Sure, if we are going fishing, we want to see
><)> lots of fish. But just
><)> > because we want it, doesn't mean we should have it.
><)>
><)> This isn't sacrificing a thriving community to
><)> make more bass fishing or
><)> electricity. This is taking a ready made
><)> community, living in relict
><)> populations, expanding their populations, and
><)> using the entire community to
><)> alleviate the pressures of channelization and
><)> nutrient overload. It's just
><)> kinda funny that a some of the plants that could
><)> be used just also happen to
><)> be on the State's List because Great Lakes
><)> Twig-rush Sedge Meadow is a
><)> globally imperilled habitat.
><)>
><)> Really, a lot of this is going to happen on its
><)> own, now that the Emerald
><)> Ash Borers are-in-plague proportions in Lucas,
><)> Wood and Henry Counties. I
><)> say.... Have a plan in place for once ;) But
><)> there are a lot of silver
><)> maples that need helped on their way.
><)>
><)> > The other question is whether the increased
><)> nutrient inputs in "prairie"
><)> > or non-forested stretches have a negative impact
><)> on the watershed as a
><)> > whole. I mean negative in terms of altering the
><)> existing or previous
><)> > nutrient balance and species assembly. Or can
><)> you show that nutrient
><)> > runoff from cleared-but-vegetated or prairie
><)> stretches are no greater than
><)> > those in forested areas?
><)>
><)> I can do even better. I can and will show that it is LESS.
><)>
><)> Again... this is flat flat flat flat flat flat
><)> area with a massive thick
><)> crust of the most crazy glacial lake lacustrine
><)> clay that doesn't absorb
><)> anything. We don't have the energy to run
><)> anything anywhere, unelss we make
><)> it. Trees aren't necessary for absorption, and
><)> the non-woody plants are a
><)> bazillion times more efficient responding to quick
><)> changes, and getting all
><)> that water and nutrients locked up in their
><)> tissue, thus slowing the rate at
><)> which the nutrients are discharged from the system
><)> as a whole (rotting
><)> instead of flowing).
><)>
><)> And again... I'm not saying this is for everywhere
><)> else either. In fact,
><)> that's why I'm pushing this, because we're trying
><)> to get HERE to work like
><)> everywhere else, and it's a different beast :)
><)>
><)> Todd
><)>
><)> /--------------------------------------------------
><)> ---------------------
><)> / This is the discussion list of the North
><)> American Native Fishes
><)> / Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list
><)> do not necessarily
><)> / reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more
><)> information about NANFA,
><)> / visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure
><)> all posts to nanfa-l are
><)> / consistent with the guidelines as per
><)> /
><)> http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html.
><)> To subscribe,
><)> / unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email
><)> list home page and
><)> / archive-in-http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe,
/ unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and
/ archive-in-http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/.
: Sat Jan 01 2005 - 12:41:44 CST