Date: 7/06/2019 20:39:16
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1396799
Subject: The first trees

An evolutionary look at tree development, an interesting read.

>>Progymnosperms, the earliest-known trees, first appeared in the Middle Devonian and became extinct in the Early Carboniferous. The innovation of a bifacial cambium enabled them to produce wood (secondary xylem) and thereby grow outwards as well as upwards, in the same way as trees do today. Unlike the later-appearing gymnosperms, to which they were probably ancestral, they reproduced by means of spores rather than seeds. <<

https://www.earthhistory.org.uk/recolonisation/vegetation-in-devonian

Reply Quote

Date: 7/06/2019 22:00:18
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1396838
Subject: re: The first trees

PermeateFree said:


An evolutionary look at tree development, an interesting read.

>>Progymnosperms, the earliest-known trees, first appeared in the Middle Devonian and became extinct in the Early Carboniferous. The innovation of a bifacial cambium enabled them to produce wood (secondary xylem) and thereby grow outwards as well as upwards, in the same way as trees do today. Unlike the later-appearing gymnosperms, to which they were probably ancestral, they reproduced by means of spores rather than seeds. <<

https://www.earthhistory.org.uk/recolonisation/vegetation-in-devonian

Thanks, i really enjoyed reading that.

Thisvchartnis new to me.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 01:52:53
From: dv
ID: 1396920
Subject: re: The first trees

Lovely

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 07:22:44
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1396930
Subject: re: The first trees

mollwollfumble said:


PermeateFree said:

An evolutionary look at tree development, an interesting read.

>>Progymnosperms, the earliest-known trees, first appeared in the Middle Devonian and became extinct in the Early Carboniferous. The innovation of a bifacial cambium enabled them to produce wood (secondary xylem) and thereby grow outwards as well as upwards, in the same way as trees do today. Unlike the later-appearing gymnosperms, to which they were probably ancestral, they reproduced by means of spores rather than seeds. <<

https://www.earthhistory.org.uk/recolonisation/vegetation-in-devonian

Thanks, i really enjoyed reading that.

This chart is new to me.


Following up on the chart and Part 9 of PermeateFree’s link, the miriapod fossil from the start of the Devonian is recognised as the earliest fossil of a land animal, from Scotland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumodesmus. Where did centipedes and millipedes come from? No-one knows for sure which is the closest extant arthropod group. But it is known from molecular studies that myriapods diversified in the Cambrian, long before the first extant fossil.

Which brings me to the topic of legs, did multilegged animals (more than 10 legs) evolve from a multilegged ancestor or did they evolve lots of legs independently? Multilegged animals include annelids, velvet worms and Cambrian monstrosities like Aysheaia (pictured below), Hallucigenia and Xenusion. Some have suggested a link to the tardigrades.

No-one has suggested a link between myriapoda and annelids, except through the velvet worms (onychophora, see below).

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 07:39:34
From: Ian
ID: 1396932
Subject: re: The first trees

Cambrian monstrosities 

That’s periodist!

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 10:20:11
From: Divine Angel
ID: 1397025
Subject: re: The first trees

Sounds like a good time to be alive. There weren’t many spiders.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 10:51:38
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397028
Subject: re: The first trees

Divine Angel said:


Sounds like a good time to be alive. There weren’t many spiders.

Yes. There were scorpions instead. Ones that didn’t need to hide under rocks to escape being eaten by birds.

According to this, millipedes branched off after … rted evolutionary relation-ships of the five arthropod groups: chelicerates (here represented by an amblypygid arachnid), trilobites (a member of the family Trinucleidae), myriapods (scutigeromorph centipede), crustaceans (a stomatopod or mantis shrimp), and insects (a dragonfly).

From https://www.academia.edu/891357/Early_terrestrial_animals_evolution_and_uncertainty

Now back to the first trees.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 11:09:58
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1397030
Subject: re: The first trees

Divine Angel said:


Sounds like a good time to be alive. There weren’t many spiders.

There were spiders in the Devonian and Carboniferous, and of course plenty of insects. In the Carboniferous there was more oxygen in the atmosphere than today, meaning that insects could grow to giant size.

Here’s Meganeura, a dragonfly-like insect from the Carboniferous.

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/m/meganeura.html

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 11:21:14
From: Divine Angel
ID: 1397032
Subject: re: The first trees

Everyone’s all about the dinosaurs but the megafauna were much more interesting.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 12:17:54
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397037
Subject: re: The first trees

Evolution of leaves, from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants

Plants were not the first photosynthesisers on land. Weathering rates suggest that organisms capable of photosynthesis were already living on the land 1,200 million years ago, and microbial fossils have been found in freshwater lake deposits from 1,000 million years ago, but the carbon isotope record suggests that they were too scarce to impact the atmospheric composition until around 850 million years ago. These organisms, although phylogenetically diverse, were probably small and simple.

The more familiar leaves, megaphylls, are thought to have originated four times independently, in the ferns, horsetails, progymnosperms and seed plants.

why did it take so long for leaves to evolve in the first place? Plants had been on the land for at least 50 million years before megaphylls became significant. However, small, rare mesophylls are known from the early Devonian genus Eophyllophyton – so development could not have been a barrier to their appearance. The best explanation so far incorporates observations that atmospheric CO2 was declining rapidly during this time – falling by around 90% during the Devonian. This required an increase in stomatal density by 100 times to maintain rates of photosynthesis. When stomata open to allow water to evaporate from leaves it has a cooling effect, resulting from the loss of latent heat of evaporation. It appears that the low stomatal density in the early Devonian meant that evaporation and evaporative cooling were limited, and that leaves would have overheated if they grew to any size. The stomatal density could not increase, as the primitive steles and limited root systems would not be able to supply water quickly enough to match the rate of transpiration. Clearly, leaves are not always beneficial, as illustrated by the frequent occurrence of secondary loss of leaves, famously exemplified by cacti and the “whisk fern” Psilotum.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 12:22:30
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1397038
Subject: re: The first trees

Some fine murals.

Plant Life Through the Ages

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 12:26:42
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397041
Subject: re: The first trees

Bubblecar said:


Some fine murals.

Plant Life Through the Ages


”3.Archaeopteris”

I can’t read that without smiling.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 12:45:56
From: Tamb
ID: 1397048
Subject: re: The first trees

Divine Angel said:


Everyone’s all about the dinosaurs but the megafauna were much more interesting.


One of my favourites.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 12:48:44
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1397049
Subject: re: The first trees

Tamb said:


Divine Angel said:

Everyone’s all about the dinosaurs but the megafauna were much more interesting.


One of my favourites.

2800kg is a lot of wombat meat.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:02:16
From: party_pants
ID: 1397051
Subject: re: The first trees

Bubblecar said:


Tamb said:

Divine Angel said:

Everyone’s all about the dinosaurs but the megafauna were much more interesting.


One of my favourites.

2800kg is a lot of wombat meat.

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:02:26
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397052
Subject: re: The first trees

Tamb said:


Divine Angel said:

Everyone’s all about the dinosaurs but the megafauna were much more interesting.


One of my favourites.

Another example of the destructive power of H sapiens.

“Recent finds of Diprotodon bones which appear to display butchering marks lend support to this theory.”

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:09:44
From: roughbarked
ID: 1397055
Subject: re: The first trees

party_pants said:


Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:


One of my favourites.

2800kg is a lot of wombat meat.

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

Yes and an emphatic No.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:10:37
From: roughbarked
ID: 1397056
Subject: re: The first trees

mollwollfumble said:


Tamb said:

Divine Angel said:

Everyone’s all about the dinosaurs but the megafauna were much more interesting.


One of my favourites.

Another example of the destructive power of H sapiens.

“Recent finds of Diprotodon bones which appear to display butchering marks lend support to this theory.”

Recent? That’s old news.cent? That

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:12:32
From: Tamb
ID: 1397057
Subject: re: The first trees

roughbarked said:


party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

2800kg is a lot of wombat meat.

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

Yes and an emphatic No.


+1

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:13:48
From: party_pants
ID: 1397058
Subject: re: The first trees

roughbarked said:


party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

2800kg is a lot of wombat meat.

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

Yes and an emphatic No.

What did the megafauna eat, and what eats it now?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:16:05
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1397059
Subject: re: The first trees

party_pants said:


roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

Yes and an emphatic No.

What did the megafauna eat, and what eats it now?

Feeding and diet

Diprotodon was probably a browser, feeding on shrubs and forbs. One skeleton from Lake Callabonna had the remains of saltbush in its abdominal region. Diprotodon may have eaten as much as100to150 kilograms of vegetation daily. Its chisel-like incisors may have been used to root out vegetation.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/australia-over-time/extinct-animals/diprotodon-optatum/

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:20:42
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1397060
Subject: re: The first trees

Bubblecar said:


party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Yes and an emphatic No.

What did the megafauna eat, and what eats it now?

Feeding and diet

Diprotodon was probably a browser, feeding on shrubs and forbs. One skeleton from Lake Callabonna had the remains of saltbush in its abdominal region. Diprotodon may have eaten as much as100to150 kilograms of vegetation daily. Its chisel-like incisors may have been used to root out vegetation.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/australia-over-time/extinct-animals/diprotodon-optatum/

Diprotodon was already in trouble from shrinking habitat along with predation from humans.

Nonetheless humans and these big critters co-existed for a long time.

>Australian Pleistocene habitats changed over time in response to the changing climate (termed the Pleistocene oscillations). Dry, windy conditions alternated with more equable conditions throughout this period, and sea levels were generally much lower than today as ice was locked in polar regions. Extended droughts would have made much of inland Australia uninhabitable; hundreds of individuals have been found at the centre of Lake Callabonna in northern South Australia, trapped in the mud as the lakebed dried out. On the Darling Downs in Queensland, one study of Diprotodon habitat has found that areas once covered in woodlands, vine thickets and scrublands gave way to grasslands as the climate became drier.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:24:06
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397061
Subject: re: The first trees

roughbarked said:


party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

2800kg is a lot of wombat meat.

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

Yes and an emphatic No.

Alternatively, no and yes.

40 thousand years is nowhere near long enough for species to evolve to counter the destruction by H sapiens.

Back to plants.

The first Angiosperm is a surprise. A single species survives today from way way back. This was a long time before the split between monocot and dicot flowering plants. It survives only in New Caledonia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amborella

Because of its evolutionary position at the base of the flowering plant clade, there was support for sequencing the complete genome of Amborella trichopoda to serve as a reference for evolutionary studies. In 2010, the US National Science Foundation began a genome sequencing effort in Amborella, and the draft genome sequence was posted on the project website in December 2013.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:28:46
From: Michael V
ID: 1397063
Subject: re: The first trees

Tamb said:


Divine Angel said:

Everyone’s all about the dinosaurs but the megafauna were much more interesting.


One of my favourites.

I have fossil teeth of two species of Diprotodon.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:30:26
From: Michael V
ID: 1397065
Subject: re: The first trees

party_pants said:


Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:


One of my favourites.

2800kg is a lot of wombat meat.

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

What an interesting thought.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:41:04
From: Divine Angel
ID: 1397070
Subject: re: The first trees

mollwollfumble said:


Tamb said:

Divine Angel said:

Everyone’s all about the dinosaurs but the megafauna were much more interesting.


One of my favourites.

Another example of the destructive power of H sapiens.

“Recent finds of Diprotodon bones which appear to display butchering marks lend support to this theory.”

Of course. Fred Flintstone and his mates regularly ate brontosaurus burgers.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:44:01
From: party_pants
ID: 1397072
Subject: re: The first trees

Divine Angel said:


mollwollfumble said:

Tamb said:


One of my favourites.

Another example of the destructive power of H sapiens.

“Recent finds of Diprotodon bones which appear to display butchering marks lend support to this theory.”

Of course. Fred Flintstone and his mates regularly ate brontosaurus burgers.

Maybe they were hunted to extinction because their penises were thought to be an aphrodisiac.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:44:06
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397073
Subject: re: The first trees

Let’s look at the earliest ferns.

Some were big.

Angiopteris evecta, commonly known as the giant fern, is a rare plant occurring in eastern and northern Australia and the Malay Peninsula. Also found growing in nearby islands such as Borneo, Sumatra, New Guinea and various places in Polynesia, Melanesia and Madagascar. The huge mature fronds measure up to 9 metres long.

Earlier ones were smaller.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botrychium
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilotum

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:50:22
From: party_pants
ID: 1397077
Subject: re: The first trees

Michael V said:


party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

2800kg is a lot of wombat meat.

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

What an interesting thought.

I’m genuinely curious. I don’t know the answer and I am not predisposed one way or the other.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 13:54:05
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397081
Subject: re: The first trees

Divine Angel said:


mollwollfumble said:

Tamb said:


One of my favourites.

Another example of the destructive power of H sapiens.

“Recent finds of Diprotodon bones which appear to display butchering marks lend support to this theory.”

Of course. Fred Flintstone and his mates regularly ate brontosaurus burgers.

I am reminded of something. Got it.

Primates and dinosaurs were around at the same time, so primates may have eaten dead dinosaurs. More likely, though, they ate fruits and invertebrates.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:03:41
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1397097
Subject: re: The first trees

party_pants said:


Michael V said:

party_pants said:

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

What an interesting thought.

I’m genuinely curious. I don’t know the answer and I am not predisposed one way or the other.

As the site I linked said, the megafauna habitat shrank dramatically long before modern times.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:08:55
From: buffy
ID: 1397101
Subject: re: The first trees

I want to know how to say Diprotodon. I’ve only recently heard it described as a giant wombat. When I learned about it in primary school it was called a Diprotodon. And we said it as dip-pro-toe-don (equal emphasis on all syllables). But I’ve also heard it pronounced die- pro -t-don. Anyone want to venture an opinion?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:11:46
From: Tamb
ID: 1397102
Subject: re: The first trees

buffy said:


I want to know how to say Diprotodon. I’ve only recently heard it described as a giant wombat. When I learned about it in primary school it was called a Diprotodon. And we said it as dip-pro-toe-don (equal emphasis on all syllables). But I’ve also heard it pronounced die- pro -t-don. Anyone want to venture an opinion?


I heard emphasise the Di.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:12:09
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1397103
Subject: re: The first trees

buffy said:


I want to know how to say Diprotodon. I’ve only recently heard it described as a giant wombat. When I learned about it in primary school it was called a Diprotodon. And we said it as dip-pro-toe-don (equal emphasis on all syllables). But I’ve also heard it pronounced die- pro -t-don. Anyone want to venture an opinion?

Suit yourself. It’s usually pronounced with an emphasis on the “pro”.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:13:23
From: Michael V
ID: 1397104
Subject: re: The first trees

buffy said:


I want to know how to say Diprotodon. I’ve only recently heard it described as a giant wombat. When I learned about it in primary school it was called a Diprotodon. And we said it as dip-pro-toe-don (equal emphasis on all syllables). But I’ve also heard it pronounced die- pro -t-don. Anyone want to venture an opinion?

Die-proto-don

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:13:56
From: Tamb
ID: 1397105
Subject: re: The first trees

Bubblecar said:


buffy said:

I want to know how to say Diprotodon. I’ve only recently heard it described as a giant wombat. When I learned about it in primary school it was called a Diprotodon. And we said it as dip-pro-toe-don (equal emphasis on all syllables). But I’ve also heard it pronounced die- pro -t-don. Anyone want to venture an opinion?

Suit yourself. It’s usually pronounced with an emphasis on the “pro”.

Di is one word. Proto is another & don is a third.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:14:04
From: buffy
ID: 1397106
Subject: re: The first trees

Michael V said:


buffy said:

I want to know how to say Diprotodon. I’ve only recently heard it described as a giant wombat. When I learned about it in primary school it was called a Diprotodon. And we said it as dip-pro-toe-don (equal emphasis on all syllables). But I’ve also heard it pronounced die- pro -t-don. Anyone want to venture an opinion?

Die-proto-don

So not Latin vowel sounds then?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:14:25
From: Divine Angel
ID: 1397107
Subject: re: The first trees

I’ve never heard it pronounced. However my high school geography teacher used to say tsunami as t’shoo-mee. Bless robadob who spelled it sue narmy.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:16:29
From: Michael V
ID: 1397109
Subject: re: The first trees

buffy said:


Michael V said:

buffy said:

I want to know how to say Diprotodon. I’ve only recently heard it described as a giant wombat. When I learned about it in primary school it was called a Diprotodon. And we said it as dip-pro-toe-don (equal emphasis on all syllables). But I’ve also heard it pronounced die- pro -t-don. Anyone want to venture an opinion?

Die-proto-don

So not Latin vowel sounds then?

Di as in dioeceous etc.

Proto as in early

Don as in Bradman.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:18:18
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 1397110
Subject: re: The first trees

Divine Angel said:


I’ve never heard it pronounced. However my high school geography teacher used to say tsunami as t’shoo-mee. Bless robadob who spelled it sue narmy.

Blimey! Robadob, now there was a strange unit.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 14:18:23
From: Tamb
ID: 1397111
Subject: re: The first trees

Michael V said:


buffy said:

Michael V said:

Die-proto-don

So not Latin vowel sounds then?

Di as in dioeceous etc.

Proto as in early

Don as in Bradman.

99.94

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:18:04
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1397125
Subject: re: The first trees

party_pants said:


Michael V said:

party_pants said:

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

What an interesting thought.

I’m genuinely curious. I don’t know the answer and I am not predisposed one way or the other.

The megafauna were large animals and the herbaceous ones could eat coarser vegetation and probably were a means of reducing the fuel load and hence highly destructive wildfires. When human came they used fire to accomplish the same thing, so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management. It however would not have been an equal exchange as the fires replaced large areas of vegetation that the megafauna could not control and so opened up the country. This situation was not disastrous as the fire and land clearing, produced habitat for many small plants to thrive and evolve over the 60,000 years of Aboriginal occupation. This expanse of vegetation, especially herbaceous vegetation provided niches for many animals, permitting highly complex eco-systems to develop.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:24:59
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1397126
Subject: re: The first trees

mollwollfumble said:


roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Here’s an interesting(ish) question for youse: Has the Australian bush evolved to deal with the loss of the megafauna, or are there still empty ecological niches waiting to be filled by large plant eating animals?

Yes and an emphatic No.

Alternatively, no and yes.

40 thousand years is nowhere near long enough for species to evolve to counter the destruction by H sapiens.

Aborigines have been in Australia for over 60,000 years and plants can evolve quite quickly due to habitat change. This change happened with the fire management of the Aborigine that created many niches for plants to colonise.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:28:34
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1397127
Subject: re: The first trees

PermeateFree said:


party_pants said:

Michael V said:

What an interesting thought.

I’m genuinely curious. I don’t know the answer and I am not predisposed one way or the other.

The megafauna were large animals and the herbaceous could eat coarser vegetation and probably were a means of reducing the fuel load and hence highly destructive wildfires. When human came they used fire to accomplish the same thing, so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management. It however would not have been an equal exchange as the fires replaced large areas of vegetation that the megafauna could not control and so opened up the country. This situation was not disastrous as the fire and land clearing, produced habitat for many small plants to thrive and evolve over the 60,000 years of Aboriginal occupation. This expanse of vegetation, especially herbaceous vegetation provided niches for many animals, permitting highly complex eco-systems to develop.

herbaceous (megafauna) = herbivores

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:32:34
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1397132
Subject: re: The first trees

I think it is misleading to suggest that firestick farming enabled a more diverse ecosystem than one that existed before humans settled Australia. For one bushfires would still have been commonplace. I think a better description would be ‘different’ instead of ‘more diverse’.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:34:01
From: AwesomeO
ID: 1397134
Subject: re: The first trees

PermeateFree said:

The megafauna were large animals and the herbaceous ones could eat coarser vegetation and probably were a means of reducing the fuel load and hence highly destructive wildfires ( hmmmmmmm) When human came they used fire to accomplish the same thing, so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management. Lucky! It however would not have been an equal exchange as the megafauna also filled the stomachs of the humans and led to its extinction.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:42:38
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1397138
Subject: re: The first trees

Witty Rejoinder said:


I think it is misleading to suggest that firestick farming enabled a more diverse ecosystem than one that existed before humans settled Australia. For one bushfires would still have been commonplace. I think a better description would be ‘different’ instead of ‘more diverse’.

For instance i expect there were as many losers from Aboriginal land management as there were winners.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:44:33
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1397141
Subject: re: The first trees

Witty Rejoinder said:


I think it is misleading to suggest that firestick farming enabled a more diverse ecosystem than one that existed before humans settled Australia. For one bushfires would still have been commonplace. I think a better description would be ‘different’ instead of ‘more diverse’.

Well it did become much more diverse. Mature tall vegetation takes moisture and light from the soil that means most other vegetation types cannot grow there. It is very enlightening to see mature mallee country burnt and from a couple of dozen species change to hundreds of species, which again will be smothered and die out as the taller vegetation matures.

The megafauna would not have been capable of controlling the larger vegetation so would require lightning strikes to set them alight, resulting due to the high fuel loads, into large extensive and hot wildfires. These are highly destructive fires that devastate wildlife, plus can kill off the seed bank within the soil, hence many species would not even colonise these areas let alone reappear periodically.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:49:12
From: party_pants
ID: 1397145
Subject: re: The first trees

PermeateFree said:


party_pants said:

Michael V said:

What an interesting thought.

I’m genuinely curious. I don’t know the answer and I am not predisposed one way or the other.

The megafauna were large animals and the herbaceous ones could eat coarser vegetation and probably were a means of reducing the fuel load and hence highly destructive wildfires. When human came they used fire to accomplish the same thing, so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management. It however would not have been an equal exchange as the fires replaced large areas of vegetation that the megafauna could not control and so opened up the country. This situation was not disastrous as the fire and land clearing, produced habitat for many small plants to thrive and evolve over the 60,000 years of Aboriginal occupation. This expanse of vegetation, especially herbaceous vegetation provided niches for many animals, permitting highly complex eco-systems to develop.

So, more a case of the eco-system evolving with a different mix of plants and animals, rather than the plants and animals themselves evolving or adapting?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:49:54
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1397146
Subject: re: The first trees

Witty Rejoinder said:


Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it is misleading to suggest that firestick farming enabled a more diverse ecosystem than one that existed before humans settled Australia. For one bushfires would still have been commonplace. I think a better description would be ‘different’ instead of ‘more diverse’.

For instance i expect there were as many losers from Aboriginal land management as there were winners.

There was certainly a reduction of megafauna, but the new niches being opened up by Aboriginal management would encourage plant and animal species to expand to take advantage of these new food resources and rich unoccupied habitats. Of course many of the forests were not, or could not burn and their ecosystems would not have changed much.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:53:16
From: roughbarked
ID: 1397148
Subject: re: The first trees

Witty Rejoinder said:


I think it is misleading to suggest that firestick farming enabled a more diverse ecosystem than one that existed before humans settled Australia. For one bushfires would still have been commonplace. I think a better description would be ‘different’ instead of ‘more diverse’.

Bushfires are as Permeate Free pointed out, wildfires.

Firestick farming are controlled slow burns of smaller patches in a mosaic style. More diverse can come into effect under these different fire regimes.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 15:53:18
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1397149
Subject: re: The first trees

party_pants said:


PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

I’m genuinely curious. I don’t know the answer and I am not predisposed one way or the other.

The megafauna were large animals and the herbaceous ones could eat coarser vegetation and probably were a means of reducing the fuel load and hence highly destructive wildfires. When human came they used fire to accomplish the same thing, so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management. It however would not have been an equal exchange as the fires replaced large areas of vegetation that the megafauna could not control and so opened up the country. This situation was not disastrous as the fire and land clearing, produced habitat for many small plants to thrive and evolve over the 60,000 years of Aboriginal occupation. This expanse of vegetation, especially herbaceous vegetation provided niches for many animals, permitting highly complex eco-systems to develop.

So, more a case of the eco-system evolving with a different mix of plants and animals, rather than the plants and animals themselves evolving or adapting?

Both. If a new habitat was ideal except for one or two exceptions, Natural Selection comes into play to minimise the problems and enhance the advantages, so the beginning of a new species.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 16:53:58
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397182
Subject: re: The first trees

> so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management.

I’ve never heard such a load of rubbish in my life.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 16:56:59
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1397185
Subject: re: The first trees

mollwollfumble said:


> so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management.

I’ve never heard such a load of rubbish in my life.

Or to put it another way. Burning down the bush because you’ve killed the animals in it is not a viable ecostrategy.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 17:05:30
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1397189
Subject: re: The first trees

mollwollfumble said:


> so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management.

I’ve never heard such a load of rubbish in my life.

What don’t you understand?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/06/2019 17:16:45
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1397201
Subject: re: The first trees

mollwollfumble said:


mollwollfumble said:

> so the megafauna was largely successfully replaced by firestick management.

I’ve never heard such a load of rubbish in my life.

Or to put it another way. Burning down the bush because you’ve killed the animals in it is not a viable ecostrategy.

You obviously do not appreciate the role of large herbivores in the landscape. They eat a lot of vegetation including the larger coarser vegetation that reduces the fuel load and hence lessens the likelihood of large destructive fires. Aborigines would have experienced this dangerous environment until they developed their mosaic burning methods that not only did a similar thing, but improved upon it.

The megafauna being large animals would have had few predators, or animals that exclusively relied upon them other than reducing the bush, therefore their loss is not going to radically effect the ecosystem, especially when their main natural advantage is replaced by an even better method. This is also evolution in action.

Reply Quote