03-08-2008, 01:04 PM
Ok, got that and read the link, but really couldn't get any more info.
The point of the article as I read it, and maybe I'm stupid, is that the invasive trees compete with the "slow growing" ohia and change the ecosystem. That's not my point, and I don't dispute that, as it's obvious. My question, rather, is whether the invasive tree species are or not better CO2 sinks than the native trees, and in that context, are perhaps more valuable than we expect. And this, as I see, the article doesn't address, and the scientists involved frankly don't see as an issue. Myopic science, as I see it.
Any other takes on the issue? I want, and NEED, and answer, and things are suddenly very silent.
The point of the article as I read it, and maybe I'm stupid, is that the invasive trees compete with the "slow growing" ohia and change the ecosystem. That's not my point, and I don't dispute that, as it's obvious. My question, rather, is whether the invasive tree species are or not better CO2 sinks than the native trees, and in that context, are perhaps more valuable than we expect. And this, as I see, the article doesn't address, and the scientists involved frankly don't see as an issue. Myopic science, as I see it.
Any other takes on the issue? I want, and NEED, and answer, and things are suddenly very silent.