[HN Gopher] Bradford pear trees banned in few states - More are ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Bradford pear trees banned in few states - More are looking to
       eradicate them
        
       Author : acdanger
       Score  : 155 points
       Date   : 2024-04-02 03:51 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.usatoday.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.usatoday.com)
        
       | brightball wrote:
       | I'm in one of the states that banned them and I used to have 2 in
       | my back yard. Never really understood the fuss.
        
         | sarchertech wrote:
         | They're invasive, they outcompete native trees, and they have
         | many negative attributes. The wild descendants are particularly
         | bad because they have thorns and grow in dense hard to remove
         | thickets.
        
           | marcus0x62 wrote:
           | They are also terribly brittle. Every single time there is a
           | storm in my neighborhood, at least one person has a massive
           | Bradford Pear split in half in their front yard (if we're
           | lucky - if not, it's out in the road.) Builders plant them
           | because they grow quickly, and, of course, they don't have to
           | deal with the problems a few years down the road.
           | 
           | Bradford's also smell really bad.
        
             | Tylast wrote:
             | I had 3 in my yard. I never thought twice about them until
             | one split down the middle & destroyed my carport 3 years
             | ago. I cut the rest of that one down & the one next to it
             | that could fall on my house. A neighbor had one split last
             | summer & blocked the road. The wood from these trees are
             | dense and heavy. I never walk under them anymore due to how
             | quickly they just fall down.
        
         | happytiger wrote:
         | Beyond the invasive mess they are making, there's this:
         | 
         | https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/23agnj/til_t...
        
       | joe_guy wrote:
       | > it's contributing to the spread of related invasive trees that
       | are taking over some urban green spaces and pastureland and
       | encroaching on forests.
       | 
       | I'll save you from the auto playing view port locker video.
        
         | Terr_ wrote:
         | A few more key points:
         | 
         | * At first the species being planted everywhere was considered
         | sterile, but somehow cross-pollination with related varieties
         | can make them produce viable fruit, then animals spread the
         | seeds.
         | 
         | * The fruit is not edible to humans.
         | 
         | * Some varieties have nasty thorns on them, able to pop vehicle
         | tires, and over time grow together into thickets.
        
           | pvaldes wrote:
           | > The fruit is not edible to humans.
           | 
           | This is a feature, not a bug
        
       | fervor wrote:
       | They smell
        
       | riffic wrote:
       | blackcurrants were banned too (by federal united states gov) for
       | some sort of complicated reason
        
         | bigbillheck wrote:
         | It's a host for white pine blister rust.
        
           | chucksta wrote:
           | man that's complicated
        
             | bigbillheck wrote:
             | Sure is! https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/disandpath/fungalb
             | asidio/pdl...
             | 
             | > The white pine blister rust pathogen is a typical
             | heteroecious, macrocyclic rust that produces five distinct
             | spore stages on two different hosts to complete its life
             | cycle. The pycnial stage consists of pycniospores, or
             | spermatia, which are haploid spores that fertilize
             | compatible receptive hyphae. The two sexes are not
             | distinguishable and are simply designated plus and minus.
             | This is the stage where genetic recombination can occur
             | that may lead to development of races of the rust. However,
             | the nuclear cycle (i.e., dikaryogamy, diploidization,
             | meiosis) of the blister rust fungus has not been fully
             | determined, but is assumed to be the same as for other
             | better known rust fungi such as Puccinia graminis. The
             | aecial stage develops in host tissue occupied by pycnia the
             | previous season (Figure 6). The fungus is perennial in the
             | pine host and aeciospores are produced annually as long as
             | the host tissues remain alive. Aeciospores are disseminated
             | by wind over long distances, and Ribes spp. as far as 480
             | km (300 miles) from the nearest known white pines have been
             | infected.
        
           | kybishop wrote:
           | To expand on this, many states have a large white pine lumber
           | industry. The white pine is highly susceptible to a type of
           | fungus harbored by currants.
           | 
           | The fungus does not spread from white pine to white pine,
           | only from currants to currant, or currant to white pine, so
           | eliminating the nearby currants protects the white pine
           | industry.
        
             | pfdietz wrote:
             | Does it go from white pine back to currants?
        
               | SeanLuke wrote:
               | Yes.
        
               | pfdietz wrote:
               | Great. I was hoping we could see alternating currants.
        
               | Terr_ wrote:
               | > alternating currants
               | 
               | Except we know the hertz will harm local timbre, even if
               | some are okay the the currant's whine.
        
               | bigbillheck wrote:
               | @dang get over here and do something about this.
        
               | gmfawcett wrote:
               | bravissimo
        
             | QuercusMax wrote:
             | In Europe they decided to get rid of the white pines (which
             | are not native) in favor of the blackcurrants.
        
               | euroderf wrote:
               | Interesting! Citation?
        
               | QuercusMax wrote:
               | I believe I learned it in this video from "The History
               | Guy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZAk1a0dqiM
        
               | tycho-newman wrote:
               | The Ribena lobby is strong
        
               | genewitch wrote:
               | I'd probably vote this way if given the choice, too.
        
             | lo_zamoyski wrote:
             | Apparently this is no longer much of an issue. Quoting [0]:
             | 
             | "The federal ban was lifted in 1966, though many states
             | maintained their own bans. Research showed that
             | blackcurrants could be safely grown some distance from
             | white pines and this, together with the development of
             | rust-immune varieties and new fungicides, led to most
             | states lifting their bans by 2003. Blackcurrants are now
             | grown commercially in the Northeastern United States and
             | the Pacific Northwest. Because of the long period of
             | restrictions, blackcurrants are not popular in the United
             | States, and one researcher has estimated that only 0.1% of
             | Americans have eaten one. [...] By 2003 restrictions on
             | Ribes cultivation had been lifted across most of the
             | states, though some bans remain, particularly on the
             | blackcurrant. State laws are enforced with varying degrees
             | of efficiency and enthusiasm; in some states, officials
             | effectively ignore the ban."
             | 
             | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackcurrant_production_i
             | n_the...
        
               | genewitch wrote:
               | they're also available at a local walmart as rootstock. I
               | bought one. If i find a nursery that has it i will buy
               | more, but i like growing "weird" plants that no one has
               | heard of, like soapberries, kumquats, that sort of thing.
        
               | SEJeff wrote:
               | Lookup beauty berries. Their fruit is edible and makes a
               | nice jam. True to their name, they're beautiful when
               | fruiting.
        
               | genewitch wrote:
               | those grow wild all over the land here, i just found out
               | what they were called last year; although i had heard
               | they're not edible but to leave them for birds. I'll ask
               | the Ag Center if they're safe to eat.
        
               | SEJeff wrote:
               | Please do ask your AG center, but they'll tell you
               | they're safe to eat. I make a jam of sorts with the
               | berries. They're not real sweet but are totally edible
        
         | davexunit wrote:
         | Blackcurrant bans feel too heavy-handed to me. Currants are a
         | wonderful berry, very easy to grow, and one of the easiest
         | woody plants to propagate.
        
           | quickthrowman wrote:
           | There are plenty of other native berries in North America.
           | White pines are rather majestic trees, particularly the old
           | growth ones. [0]
           | 
           | I'm happy with white pines and raspberries/blueberries,
           | Europe can keep their blackcurrants.
           | 
           | [0] https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/chippewa/recarea/?recid=2
           | 667...
        
       | beezle wrote:
       | Was on HOA board where we had a road with quite a few of these
       | trees. They were a fortune to prune because of the numerous small
       | branches at higher reaches. As a board, we actually hoped they
       | would come down in storms so we could replace with something more
       | appropriate without the take down cost (and resident complaints).
       | 
       | Another unqiue thing is during the summer it was not uncommon for
       | a branch to suddenly explode - apparently some type of
       | moisture/vapor build up in the interior.
        
         | cafard wrote:
         | Where was this? In Maryland they would break, a lot, but I
         | never heard of them exploding. I don't think the people in our
         | development loved them. Certainly I had seen a few too many
         | across somebody's lawn or walk.
        
           | beezle wrote:
           | Southern CT near the sound. Yes it would happen with some of
           | the wide, low branches. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't like
           | popcorn, maybe once every other year.
        
         | flutas wrote:
         | They also smell like someone took a rotting fish, dunked it in
         | sewage and decided to roast it in the sun for a few days.
         | 
         | They're everywhere where I live, and it's so bad.
        
           | QuercusMax wrote:
           | We had one in front of our house at one point, and the first
           | year it bloomed we thought there was a dead animal under the
           | house.
           | 
           | Some people say they smell like bleach and/or semen as well.
           | I'd rather have Durian than Bradford pear.
        
           | dvirsky wrote:
           | These are the same trees known as Cum Trees, right?
           | 
           | My neighbors have a couple, I didn't know these before moving
           | to the US, and the first time I smelled them was...
           | something.
        
             | LambdaComplex wrote:
             | They sure are
        
             | neilv wrote:
             | At least one street here got lined with those. A witty
             | lesbian friend I was walking with identified the scent
             | immediately, so at least the trees were good for some
             | jokes.
        
               | exe34 wrote:
               | I don't think wit is how she identified it.
        
             | akira2501 wrote:
             | I thought that was the Linden tree.[0]
             | 
             | [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m-8l3V38Ps
        
               | FredPret wrote:
               | Always the first thing that come to mind when smelly
               | trees "come up"
        
               | lo_zamoyski wrote:
               | Linden trees have a unique scent, but I never thought it
               | was repulsive or even remotely associated with the kinds
               | of things people associate it with.
        
               | bbarnett wrote:
               | What people eat, affects how they smell and their.. um,
               | liquids.
        
               | TeMPOraL wrote:
               | I suppose this is where the whole "you are what you eat"
               | and similar BS sayings came from.
        
             | davemp wrote:
             | That reminds me of when I asked an arborist why the tree
             | they were taking down was called a "Piss Oak". They said
             | wait until we drop it and you won't have to ask. Sure
             | enough the entire area smelled like urine for a couple hrs
             | after they felled the tree.
        
               | Loughla wrote:
               | Do you mean Piss Elm? I've never heard of an oak with
               | that quality.
        
               | davemp wrote:
               | I believe the polite common name is "Pin Oak" [1] a fast
               | growing, short lived, and relatively red oak. Supposedly
               | the smell comes from a bacterial infection that afflicts
               | most of the Pin Oak population.
               | 
               | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_palustris
        
               | TeMPOraL wrote:
               | I've never been very fond of nature to begin with[0], but
               | I never imagined becoming disgusted by _trees_. That 's
               | until seeing some four different tree species mentioned
               | in this thread, whose common characteristic seems to be
               | the aura of shite and decay that takes years or decades
               | to break through people's desperate need to pretend that
               | since it is nature and handles well, it must be good.
               | 
               | --
               | 
               | [0] - Specifically at human/humane, live in and breathe
               | in and admire it scale. I'm very fond of nature at
               | population scale, and at molecular scale, both of which
               | present interesting puzzles and applications.
        
               | datadrivenangel wrote:
               | There's a reason people tend to burn down rain forests.
               | 
               | Well, two reasons: money from the cleared land, and rain
               | forests tend to be unpleasant reserves of biodiversity
               | with all sorts of nasty plants and flying insects that
               | want to lay eggs under your skin.
        
               | TeMPOraL wrote:
               | Honestly, it's the money from the cleared land. Horrors
               | of nature are the reason people _stay away_. People move
               | in only when those horrors occupy resources people think
               | can be put to a better use.
               | 
               | Yes, it's often enough dumb, short-sighted, self-
               | destructive selfish behavior, which I absolutely do not
               | condone. However, horror or disgust alone are nowhere
               | near enough to get people to engage in such behavior. At
               | most it gets people to try - and sometimes succeed - to
               | clear invasive species out of the gardens they already
               | have.
        
               | saghm wrote:
               | > I've never been very fond of nature to begin with
               | 
               | > [0] - Specifically at human/humane, live in and breathe
               | in and admire it scale. I'm very fond of nature at
               | population scale, and at molecular scale, both of which
               | present interesting puzzles and applications.
               | 
               | I can relate to this a lot. I feel the same way about
               | nature as I do about a tiger or a volcano; I think
               | they're cool and I respect them, but I don't care to
               | spend time up close with them.
        
             | BeFlatXIII wrote:
             | Piperidine Trees, if you spent too much time in an
             | undergrad chem lab.
        
           | silisili wrote:
           | My high school had a bunch of these. All the kids called them
           | CumDrop trees, for good reason.
        
           | pvaldes wrote:
           | Common Pear trees have also this fish smell. Everything
           | pollinated by flies has an offensive smell in one or other
           | way. This is bad but can be desirable at the same time (no
           | wasps or bees in the narrow streets).
        
           | swalling wrote:
           | The other one that smells horrible are female gingko trees.
           | The fruits smell like rancid butter or garbage.
           | 
           | These days you can really only buy the male ones but older
           | plantings are awful.
           | https://www.purdue.edu/fnr/extension/ginkgo-stinkgo-are-
           | boys...
        
             | scns wrote:
             | We have a street lined with those. To me it smells like
             | vomit.
        
           | TheHypnotist wrote:
           | I have one in my yard and it doesn't smell at all. It also
           | doesn't produce fruit.
        
         | echelon wrote:
         | Bradford pears were all the rage in the 1990s to 2000s. At one
         | point HOAs thought these were the _best tree_. Local gardens
         | and nurseries would sell lots of them to landscapers and
         | homeowners.
         | 
         | To this day, they're all over my home state of Georgia. And
         | they're still selected for new landscaping.
         | 
         | They did have a few pros:
         | 
         | - Look great in the spring
         | 
         | - Huge, lush, thick canopy in the summer
         | 
         | - Fast growing
         | 
         | But there are way too many problems:
         | 
         | - Kills all the grass underneath them from shade and root
         | structure
         | 
         | - Seedlings and root offshoots are pervasive pests
         | 
         | - Produces a lot of fruit, and it's toxic to humans and dogs.
         | It smells bad and can smear if you step on it
         | 
         | - Trees only live 7 - 15 years, and they leave a gnarly root
         | system to deal with.
         | 
         | - Extremely prone to falling over during winds or tornadoes.
         | Can easily damage fences, housing, etc. We had to replace our
         | fence once because of one. Even small storms can bring down the
         | older trees.
         | 
         | - And of course, everyone knows how awful they smell in the
         | spring
        
           | ethbr1 wrote:
           | I think this takes the cake for "first invasive species I've
           | seen populate over my lifespan."
           | 
           | Just moved back to GA after 3 years away and asked folks what
           | all the white-blossoming trees in meadows are this spring, as
           | don't remember seeing so many blossoms previously.
           | 
           | Cherries (closest blossom I know) aren't that fruitful /
           | clustering. Dogwoods look completely different.
           | 
           | > _Extremely prone to falling over during winds or
           | tornadoes._
           | 
           | Also kids climbing on them, from childhood experience. Weak
           | wood.
        
             | saalweachter wrote:
             | Marmarated beetles for me.
        
             | pvaldes wrote:
             | A few observations:
             | 
             | Japanese Cherries can be much more packed with flowers than
             | this pear (It depends on the cultivar). Both Cherries and
             | Dogwoods are royalty on gardens, but both deploy to much
             | wider structures that can be low branched and tend to hang
             | searching the floor, so this Pyrus is still pretty much
             | unbeatable for narrow streets. Palms have their own
             | problems, like thorns, but are "designed" for streets with
             | extremely windy areas. The problem is that palms don't
             | survive the same frost than pears can.
             | 
             | There are maybe five or ten trees so narrow in their
             | category that, unlike conifers, bring blossoms, clean
             | relatively dry fruits, and excellent fall colour in snowy
             | areas. Some are among the most alien things that you can
             | have in a garden.
             | 
             | And all that grows in such acute angles is prone to
             | catastrophic cracks for wind damage. It comes in the
             | package.
             | 
             | Having a Dogwood that would grow fastigiate retaining the
             | "dog wood" part, would be a revolution, but is not
             | available at this moment (and probably will never be).
             | Dogwoods love the 90 degrees angle. I have a maple 'Tsukasa
             | Silhouette' that would look great, but is too small, too
             | expensive and too delicate to be used as that.
             | 
             | Pears are still one of the tastier fruits in a garden, not
             | ornamental royalty, but food royalty for sure. I just
             | ignore the short interval of smell as a necessary tax to
             | pay.
        
               | Turing_Machine wrote:
               | Unfortunately Bradford pears are toxic to humans (though
               | not birds).
        
           | xp84 wrote:
           | Wow, that's pretty wild that those cons didn't dissuade
           | people from propagating them deliberately!
        
             | olliej wrote:
             | IIRC they were introduced aggressively as being a non-
             | propagating, non fruiting tree or something, both of which
             | turned out to be false, but by the time people realized
             | this it was far too late :-/
             | 
             | Reminds me of SF planting Pohutakawas everywhere - an NZ
             | native tree that requires little water, don't fall over,
             | don't fruit, etc. Except as any NZer could tell you, the
             | reason they don't fall over is that they're evolved to grow
             | on/around cliffs and loose earth, so they go all in on
             | strong roots. Which mean constantly breaking roads and
             | sidewalks. yay!
             | 
             | Also while they don't fruit they produce a tonne of flowers
             | that produce a tonne of cruft on the ground :-/
        
               | bombcar wrote:
               | Eucalyptus in southern California; railroads thought
               | they'd be great for building ties out of, they're not,
               | and they're extremely flammable and explode.
        
               | genewitch wrote:
               | I always heard that burning eucalyptus wood was toxic,
               | but now i'm wondering if someone got their signals
               | crossed because pressure treated wood and i think
               | creosote treated wood are toxic when burned, too? I heard
               | it as a teen, at school they took down a couple 100'
               | eucalyptus and said we couldn't have a bonfire because of
               | that reason.
        
               | bombcar wrote:
               | It might be, all I remember is that they explode during
               | fires which make the fires spread faster or something.
               | They burn really well.
        
           | lotsofpulp wrote:
           | > Local gardens and nurseries would sell lots of them to
           | landscapers and homeowners.
           | 
           | They still do. It's the cheapest bang for the buck tree for
           | large scale developers across the entire US.
        
           | beezle wrote:
           | From earlier response, the HOA I mentioned was along Long
           | Island Sound so much more northerly. Our trees were a good
           | 30+ years old. They were somewhat sheltered from high winds,
           | especially when younger, by the nature of the buildings (two
           | story row houses). It wasn't until the canopy reached a fair
           | bit over the rooflines that they really started coming down
           | in thunderstorms. That no parked cars were crushed was pretty
           | much a miracle.
           | 
           | And spot on with the no grass underneath...and the homeowner
           | complaints about dirt in front of their units ("if you pay to
           | take it down and replace, we'll let you!")
        
           | datavirtue wrote:
           | I have some type of pear tree in my front yard that look
           | identical but they don't have any of these drawbacks.
        
           | cmpalmer52 wrote:
           | It doesn't even take wind or storms, if they get too
           | big/spread out, they'll sometimes just spontaneously split
           | down the middle (one in our backyard pulled this trick and
           | one in our front yard, but we were planning on cutting them
           | down anyway - planted by builders and/or previous residents).
        
       | GenerWork wrote:
       | I love reading about this kind of stuff. My neighbor has a bunch
       | of Brazilian pepper trees, and let me tell you, those things are
       | a nightmare. Incredibly invasive, grows extremely well in our
       | climate, no natural predators here, and they outcompete almost
       | every other tree. I cut a branch from one that was deforming a
       | palm tree due to the way the branch had grown.
        
       | hollywood_court wrote:
       | This is good news. In my area the only thing worse than Bradford
       | pears are the Mimosas. It took me ~3 years of consistent work to
       | clear off the Mimosas from our 1 acre lot in town. And I still
       | have to spray or hand pull hundreds of the tiny ones each season
       | because none of my neighbors have been as diligent.
        
         | stass wrote:
         | What's wrong with Mimosas? They smell so nice in spring!
        
           | hammock wrote:
           | They are invasive, take hold and hard to eradicate/control,
           | the flowers make a mess, and they are easily damaged in
           | storms
        
           | astura wrote:
           | They are invasive (in the US) and grow like weeds completely
           | taking over and crowding out native species. Having many of
           | them screws up the nitrogen level of the soil further
           | crowding out/killing native plants.
           | 
           | This alters the ecosystem.
        
           | sarchertech wrote:
           | In addition to what everyone else said, they are nitrogen
           | fixing, so their leaf litter creates too much nitrogen for
           | most native plants to grow.
        
           | hollywood_court wrote:
           | Other commenters have covered most of the reasons why they
           | are awful, but my main complaint is that they will completely
           | take over your garden beds and wooded areas if left
           | undisturbed.
        
           | deciplex wrote:
           | Like anything else they're fine - the problem is when you
           | drink too many of them.
        
           | lotsofpulp wrote:
           | In PNW, they look dead in the spring. The leaves don't even
           | appear until late May, and flowers bloom in late July at
           | earliest.
        
       | hammock wrote:
       | Important note: There are now hybrid species that don't have the
       | same downsides as the original true Bradford pear. Most of what
       | are planted now are these hybrids.
        
         | datavirtue wrote:
         | I think those are what I have in my yard as I was not seeing
         | any issues with them. No weird smell, shoots, or lifespan
         | problems.
        
           | TheHypnotist wrote:
           | Right. Mine was planted almost 40 years ago by the previous
           | owner and does not smell or produce fruit.
        
       | pkaye wrote:
       | When we bought our house we had 3 city trees which were Bradford
       | pear trees. We lots two of them during rainy season. One lost a
       | major branch. The other got uprooted. I've read Bradford tree
       | 
       | I'm in California. Our city doesn't allow Bradford pear trees
       | anymore. When we bought our hour we had three Bradford pear
       | trees. Over time we lost two of them during rainy seasons. One
       | got uprooted and the other broke off a major branch. Both times
       | it was fortunate that nobody was injured or property got damaged.
       | Ended up replacing them all.
        
       | tycho-newman wrote:
       | I thought these were linden trees this whole time.
        
       | bagels wrote:
       | They need a better name that conveys their vile nature. I love
       | pears. Why are people so upset about a pear tree I initially
       | thought?
        
         | bitbckt wrote:
         | "Cum tree" doesn't do it for you?
        
           | bagels wrote:
           | The title of the article is "Bradford pear trees..." which
           | seems to be the accepted name.
        
       | aendruk wrote:
       | I really wish submissions could be tagged to warn about auto-
       | playing video.
        
       | autokad wrote:
       | This answers a lot for me, I always wanted why they planted this
       | tree everywhere when it smells so awful.
        
       | skeledrew wrote:
       | Ah, typical. Nature taking its course and, once again, humans
       | decide they know what's better and is going in to "correct"
       | things. Then a few years in there's the cry about the disruption
       | that was caused, and yet even more attempts at rectification. A
       | never-ending cycle, because we can't learn to be hands off. Well
       | I guess the cycle will eventually end given things are always
       | somewhat worse with every swing of the correction pendulum, so at
       | some point it'll all just... crash.
        
         | bungeonsBaggins wrote:
         | I don't mean to blow your mind, but humans are a part of
         | nature. One advantage we have over other species is that we can
         | spot patterns and work collectively to fix undesirable
         | situations or circumstances. And if our fix causes further
         | problems, we can fix those too!
         | 
         | We're flawed creatures so it's not ideal, but it sure beats
         | being at the mercy of the forces nature uses to correct things
         | on its own, like diseases and famine.
        
           | bcatanzaro wrote:
           | Yes! Is a beaver dam artificial or natural? I believe
           | everything humans do is part of nature.
        
             | lo_zamoyski wrote:
             | I would submit that the very idea of "nature", as used
             | informally, is ill-defined and frankly incoherent, and
             | should not be used, or at least should only be used loosely
             | within specific contexts where it does make sense (a
             | healthy ecosystem in which human beings also thrive, which
             | is no doubt a range), like "I love taking walks in nature".
             | What is natural under this definition? If water from a
             | stream natural, but is water synthesized from hydrogen and
             | oxygen unnatural?
             | 
             | The only sensible definition I know of of "natural" is
             | "according to the nature of a thing". Thus, human beings
             | have a nature, and that nature is what determines what is
             | good or bad for us. Arsenic isn't poisonous _as such_ , but
             | it is poisonous to us by virtue of our nature. We are
             | rational animals by nature. And so, unnatural are things
             | which depart from that nature, like the desire to eat glass
             | or having a sexual interest in oak trees and so on. It is
             | the nature of a thing that is the reference point that
             | allows pathologies to be defined. By nature, we should have
             | two arms, hence to lose or lack an arm is a defect.
             | Similarly, psychological disorders only make sense with
             | reference to the normative, which is defined by human
             | nature. To say "everything is natural" renders the word
             | meaningless, annihilating all justifiable and objectively
             | normative statements, which is absurd. If everything is
             | "natural", then nothing is unnatural, because natural is
             | simply identical with everything.
        
           | skeledrew wrote:
           | And look at the state of the world with all our
           | interventions. We may be "a part of nature", but the things
           | we do to it are definitely not natural. We're the only ones
           | doing collectively irreparable harm, so as not to be at its
           | mercy.
        
             | TeMPOraL wrote:
             | > _We may be "a part of nature", but the things we do to it
             | are definitely not natural._
             | 
             | Name three.
             | 
             | I can think of one: we landed stuff on the Moon and beyond.
             | I _think_ that otherwise, nature has a hard time reaching
             | out beyond low Earth orbit.
             | 
             | Other than that, I can't think of anything we'd consider
             | massive fuckups that nature didn't do better. We're
             | definitely tamer than anything else, considering that life
             | itself is a mass murder fest at every scale, from molecular
             | to planetary.
        
               | quesera wrote:
               | I'm not sure I'd count your example, it's just a
               | variation on "wander or explore".
               | 
               | But "Plastics" could be a candidate.
        
               | skeledrew wrote:
               | All things nuclear, gross water mismanagement, fossil
               | fuel mining and usage, all things plastic, hunting and
               | killing for sport and other non-nutrient-related desires,
               | extreme resource hoarding, ... that's 6 broad areas so
               | far; shall I continue?
        
         | hollywood_court wrote:
         | If we were 'hands off', the Bradford Pear would have never made
         | it to North America in the first place.
        
           | skeledrew wrote:
           | We don't know that for sure though. All it takes is a single
           | seed in an ideal condition. And that condition could've
           | probably happened in a way that the pear wouldn't have the
           | advantage that's caused some to name it "invasive".
           | 
           | But also, left alone, nature tends to rebalance on its own.
           | Any species with a dominant advantage will eventually lose
           | that advantage, given a few generations. Well, except for
           | humans, who continually fight the natural rebalancing, and
           | are only succeeding in increasingly destroying that which
           | sustains life on this planet.
        
         | oasisbob wrote:
         | The Bradford pear is a cultivar of an imported species from
         | Asia.
         | 
         | Nothing about this tree growing in North America is "nature
         | taking its course".
         | 
         | Humans decided to cultivate it here, and we can choose to stop.
         | Cycles of correction, sure, but attempting to fix problems due
         | to introduced species seems like a worthwhile effort.
        
           | skeledrew wrote:
           | We will consider intervening in nature to be a "worthwhile
           | effort" right up to the moment we finally make the planet
           | 100% uninhabitable.
        
         | pessimizer wrote:
         | > Nature taking its course
         | 
         | Lawns and backyards.
        
           | skeledrew wrote:
           | Unnaturally created and maintained.
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | The company that I worked for, had a row of these across the
       | primo parking spaces.
       | 
       | During the fall months, these parking spaces were always
       | available.
       | 
       | I found out why.
       | 
       | If you park under one of these things in November, you come out
       | in the evening, and it looks like every incontinent buzzard on
       | Earth sat over your car.
        
         | pandemic_region wrote:
         | Does 'sat over' imply 'shat on'?
        
           | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
           | Pretty much.
           | 
           | "Sitting Over" + "Incontinent" == "Shat On"
        
         | tomohawk wrote:
         | I thought you were going to say something about how large
         | branches will just pop off and crush anything beneath them at
         | random times. This is due to how multiple branches will come
         | from the trunk at the same point, and are weakly attached.
         | 
         | EDIT:
         | 
         | Having finally eradicated all of the ones from our land, the
         | best method is to immediately pour herbicide onto the trunk
         | after cutting it down. The herbicide will get sucked down into
         | the roots this way. If you don't do this, you'll get new
         | suckers all over the place for a few years.
        
           | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
           | This is true. Same with Ailanthus.
           | 
           | I was talking about the pears, which are small, round things,
           | and rot on the branch; finally plopping off. They make this
           | nasty, sticky brown mess, filled with seeds. Looks exactly
           | like [large] bird shit, but is actually a lot more difficult
           | to clean.
        
           | aidenn0 wrote:
           | What herbicide do you use? I have a tree growing under my
           | roofline that keeps growing back. I tried glyphosate last
           | time, but it came back.
        
             | Terr_ wrote:
             | That makes me think of some bamboo eradication advice: You
             | allow new growth to progress so that it consumes energy
             | from the tricky root system, then cut it before the fresh
             | sections can provide much in photosynthetic return-on-
             | investment. After a few years of losing calories with each
             | attempt, the plant runs out.
             | 
             | That might only work for plants with "bursty" regrowth
             | though.
        
               | devmor wrote:
               | I spent 3 years combating bamboo in a similar fashion and
               | it certainly didn't work for me. I've never experienced a
               | more frustratingly invasive plant in my life. Even wild
               | blackberries are easier to deal with.
        
               | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
               | Around here, the best way to deal with a bamboo
               | infestation is with a backhoe.
               | 
               | Bamboo is big grass. It spreads via seeds and roots. It
               | all needs to be ripped out.
               | 
               | When I lived in Africa, we'd have bamboo forests, with
               | trunks up to about a two-foot diameter (and about six
               | inches apart). Completely impassable.
               | 
               | Great place for small critters to escape big predators.
        
               | devmor wrote:
               | Unfortunately for me, my neighbor had about a half acre
               | of thick bamboo forest, and thus my yard was set upon by
               | the plant endlessly.
        
               | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
               | In my area, you can rat these folks out to the DEC. I
               | suspect they can make life difficult for folks that want
               | to keep their weedlots.
               | 
               | I watched them take out a backyard full of kudzu.
        
               | hansvm wrote:
               | That's how I deal with a mint infestation. After 6-8
               | prunings the plant is usually dead.
        
             | adestefan wrote:
             | Glyphosate is only absorbed through foliage. I have had
             | good luck with brush killer.
        
             | Turing_Machine wrote:
             | Supposedly painting it on the cut end of the trunk on a
             | periodic basis (and on the cut ends of any sprouts that do
             | come up) is more effective than a one-time drench.
             | Glyphosate has a pretty short half-life.
             | 
             | Also, a spot treatment of the ends means considerably less
             | herbicide entering the soil.
        
             | SEJeff wrote:
             | How did you apply? For something fast growing / invasive
             | like a Bradford pear, or a honeysuckle, you really need to
             | get Glyphosate into the roots for it to die. I was taught
             | this trick by an Arborist:
             | 
             | Cut the tree down and leave 4-6" above the ground. Take a
             | small drill and put a 3/8" drill bit in it. Try to find the
             | small hole in the very middle of the trunk and drill down
             | into it. This is how the sap flows through the tree.
             | Carefully spray 3-4 good sprays of Glyphosate into the hole
             | with gloves and eye protection. The tree and gravity will
             | take this down into the roots where they will die. The
             | small amount of Glyophosate will stay in the roots for
             | approximately eight years, and it won't leak out into the
             | soil as it's held by them.
        
             | mechanicalpulse wrote:
             | I believe the best herbicide for many situations may very
             | well be patience and elbow grease.
             | 
             | Disclaimer: While I am an avid gardener and I enjoy
             | learning about the agricultural sciences, I am a
             | computerologist, not a botanist, biologist, or chemist.
             | 
             | I don't know all there is to know about herbicides. I know
             | there are broad-spectrum herbicides and selective
             | herbicides, but I am only aware of two of them by name.
             | 
             | There's the well-known broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate,
             | of course, but it is absorbed by foilage and has low
             | persistence in soil. This is why the application
             | instructions typically say to apply in sunny weather when
             | the winds are light and rain is not expected for several
             | days.
             | 
             | Then there's tebuthiuron, another broad-spectrum herbicide.
             | It's been almost fifteen years, now, but there was a famous
             | case of landmark oak trees in Auburn, Alabama, being
             | poisoned with Spike 80DF -- a specific formulation of
             | tebuthiuron made by Dow -- by a rabid sports fan upset by
             | the recent success of a rival. Because tebuthiuron is
             | absorbed through the roots, has high persistence in soil,
             | and inhibits photosynthesis, the trees were assured to die.
             | My understanding is that this is an industrial herbicide,
             | though, and may be difficult for consumers to obtain. It's
             | banned in the EU.
             | 
             | Don't do what I did, which is to throw caution to the wind
             | in frustration.
             | 
             | I was successful in killing a tree under my roofline. It
             | was planted less than a foot away from the foundation and
             | was difficult to prune due to its location amidst yews and
             | aborvitaes. The trunk grew to about 3" in diameter before I
             | decided to cut it down. I cut it down to about an inch or
             | two above the ground. It was nothing if not insistent,
             | though. It continued to put out new shoots and I would cull
             | them and/or spray it with glyphosate when I noticed it.
             | After a couple of years of this dance, I escalated things.
             | I cut the trunk down beneath the surface so that no part of
             | it was above the ground. I doused it with a number of
             | chemicals based on advice I received. Eventually, it
             | stopped putting out new shoots. Over the next few years,
             | though, the pair of healthy, well-established arborvitaes
             | about ten feet away on either side began to brown and die.
             | I think it's quite likely that whatever I did to rid myself
             | of the tree also contributed to the demise of my
             | arborvitaes.
             | 
             | If I had to do it over again -- having the benefit of
             | hindsight as well as the patience that comes with age -- I
             | would have tried to suffocate and starve it instead of
             | saturating the soil with something that may hang around to
             | impose unintended consequences. Perhaps I would have had
             | success cutting it beneath the ground and capping it with a
             | sturdy container impermeable to light, water, and air. I
             | would have periodically removed the cap long enough to
             | eliminate any new branches or shoots that should threaten
             | to breach the barrier. I would have done this until it
             | exhausted all of its energy reserves trying to reach the
             | light.
             | 
             | Cellulose is constructed from chains of glucose -- probably
             | the most common carbohydrate produced via photosynthesis.
             | Plants synthesize carbohydrates, store them in tissue, and
             | later metabolize them via respiration. If one is both
             | diligent and patient in limiting the plant's capacity to
             | photosynthesize and respirate, I am sure it will eventually
             | die.
             | 
             | Glucose photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O - C6H12O6 + 6O2
             | 
             | Aerobic respiration: C6H12O6 + 6O2 - 6CO2 + 6H2O + ATP
             | 
             | Good luck with your tree!
        
       | landr0id wrote:
       | relevant: https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x4zza/heres-why-the-
       | trees-o...
        
       | delichon wrote:
       | The original Bradford pear tree was ideal for planting because it
       | was thought to be sterile in that it could not reproduce. -- TFA
       | John Hammond: There you are. There. They imprint on the first
       | creature they come in contact with. Helps them to trust me. I've
       | been present for the birth of every creature on this island.
       | Ian Malcolm: Well, surely not the ones that have bred in the
       | wild.       Henry Wu: Actually, they can't breed in the wild.
       | Population control is one of our security precautions. There is
       | no unauthorized breeding in Jurassic Park.       Ian Malcolm: Uh,
       | and how do you know they can't breed?       Henry Wu: Well that's
       | because all the animals in Jurassic Park are female. We've
       | engineered them that way.
        
         | gweinberg wrote:
         | One of the more ridiculous concepts in a completely ridiculous
         | movie. The frogs and fish that "change their sex" just change
         | what kind of gametes they make in their splooge. Totally re-
         | plumbing their insides would a completely different kettle of
         | fish.
        
           | kortex wrote:
           | It's a plot point which drives the entire narrative. If we
           | took out ever sci-fi element that was scientifically
           | implausible, you'd take out a hefty chunk of sci-fi.
        
       | razeh wrote:
       | When the article got to the part where the trees were thought to
       | be sterile, did anyone else hear Jeff Goldblum saying "Life finds
       | a way"?
        
         | YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
         | >> But somewhere along the line other Callery pear trees and
         | Bradford pear trees cross-pollinated and some began producing
         | viable fruit. Birds and mammals eat the fruit and poop out the
         | seeds, often far from the tree from which it came.
         | 
         | "Life ... finds a way".
         | 
         | ... with bird poop.
         | 
         | The latter probably not in Jeff Goldblum's voice though.
        
       | gweinberg wrote:
       | Why did anyone want pear trees whose fruit is inedible and whose
       | flowers smell bad in the first place?
        
         | Turing_Machine wrote:
         | They're dirt-cheap and grow extremely fast.
         | 
         | Just the ticket for fly-by-night real estate developers.
         | 
         | By the time they get big enough to cause problems, the
         | developer is long gone, off to fleece other suckers.
        
       | 1letterunixname wrote:
       | Oh damn, and I thought lemon trees were fun to prune. These can
       | kill you and smell terrible. At least lemon trees tend to smell
       | nice while threatening you with enormous thorns during pruning.
       | 
       | Somewhat worse: Krauter Vesuvius / Cherry Plum trees stain
       | sidewalks and make a horrible mess every year.
        
       | shockeychap wrote:
       | Is it me, or does it seem like "invasive pear tree" has become a
       | big story this spring, seemingly out of nowhere. Maybe I just
       | don't follow news around this, but this spring there have been
       | both local and national stories about municipalities dealing with
       | these trees. I'm not saying it's not a story, just that I wasn't
       | aware of it before and am wondering if it reached some kind of
       | critical mass as a problem just this year.
        
         | mechanicalpulse wrote:
         | It's you. :) More magnanimously, you caught the story for the
         | first time this year. I seem to come across a story about it
         | every year around this time ever since first learning of it a
         | couple of years ago through the Tennessee Naturalists community
         | I follow on Facebook. As the tree spreads, so too does the
         | knowledge of its unflattering qualities. Awareness efforts are
         | likely to continue until community leaders take action.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-03 23:02 UTC)