¿Estábamos entonces equivocados acerca de la lluvia ácida en los años 1980? ¿Podemos estar seguros de que la nueva historia: cambio climático, suelo desecado y monocultivos es correcta? Otra alternativa de los años 80 es la introducción masiva del glifosato o Roundup. 1. El glifosato, aunque oficialmente clasificado como antibiótico, es un herbicida no selectivo. Esto significa que no es selectivo en los tipos de plantas que mata; puede matar todas las plantas con las que entra en contacto. 2. El glifosato también es un desecante de cultivos, lo que parece pertinente para la falta de humedad del suelo asociada con la pérdida de todos los árboles de hoja perenne. 3. Aunque se roció ampliamente en el Medio Oeste de Estados Unidos como pop, los contaminantes orgánicos persistentes y debido al efecto saltamontes migrarán a climas más fríos como Canadá y el norte de Europa. Why Europe and America’s dying forests could be good news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9UprJXSVSg

Alors, avions-nous tort à propos des pluies acides dans les années 1980 ? Pouvons-nous être sûrs que la nouvelle histoire : Changement climatique, sols desséchés et monocultures est correcte ? Une autre alternative issue des années 1980 est l’introduction massive du Glyphosate ou Roundup. 1. Le glyphosate, bien que officiellement classé comme antibiotique, est un herbicide non sélectif. Cela signifie qu’il n’est pas sélectif quant aux types de plantes qu’il tue ; il peut tuer toutes les plantes avec lesquelles il entre en contact. 2. Le glyphosate est également un dessicant pour les cultures, ce qui semble pertinent pour le manque d'humidité du sol associé à la perte de tous les arbres à feuilles persistantes. 3. Même s'il a été largement pulvérisé dans le Midwest américain sous forme de pop, les polluants organiques persistants et en raison de l'effet sauterelle, migreront vers des climats plus froids comme le Canada et l'Europe du Nord. regardez Why Europe and America’s dying forests could be good news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9UprJXSVSg

The pine engraver beetle is common to the Black Hills and obviously attacks pines attacking the tops of the trees, while mountain pine beetle attacks are along the lower 3/4 of the tree. These pines were never in man-made plantations yet still were decimated first by "acid rain" and now by "Global Warming" or maybe not. Is it possible that our evergreens are just the canaries in the coal mine of an ongoing Glyphosate catastrophe? See https://danr.sd.gov/Conservation/Forestry/ForestHealth/MountainPineBeetle/Mtn%20Pine%20Beetle%20in%20the%20Black%20Hills.pdf

Look at this 9-year-old map of American Roundup use. Understand that 80 percent of this antibiotic ends up in the Mississippi, constantly evaporating all along the river and the Gulf of Mexico. Then what happens to the Glyphosates? some of it ends up in Canada when it rains but a great deal of this pollutant sort of follows the Gulf Stream and precipitates in colder climes in Europe. Tomatoes in France must be protected against late summer rains otherwise there is a real threat of mildew. Even worse than destroying some forest ecosystems I recommend highly watching

Chemical Farming & The Loss of Human Health

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw16LPVnNco.

Mister Chris I do not agree with your analysis.

You point to the situation of Pines in the Black Hills of South Dakota as if this was related to acid rain monoculture and roundup herbicide.

The supposition is not supported by these facts. The black hills is in a zone of little use of fossil fuels to generate acid rains and the natural soil there is quite alkaline for the most part.

The use of Roundup herbicide is not related to acid rain which falls mostly in eastern third of the continental USA.

The proliferation of roundup is a function of genetically modified cropping which is also not common in Black Hills area.

Your concern about roundup is a valid one your suggestion on acidity with the Black Hills pines are not supportable epidemiologically.

The issues you allude too are able to be addressed as farmers could be weaned from agrichemical dependency and move to regenerative agriculture to produce food stuffs without the agrichemical dependency and use of monocultural and using biological inputs with are more biologically susteined and diversified.

Dear Doctor

Go To

Spruce Monocultures in Central Europe – Problems and Prospects

Emil Klimo, Herbert Hager and Jiri Kulhavý (eds.)

EFI Proceedings No. 33, 2000

[In the final discussion of the workshop, it was stated that in comparison with the present distribution of Norway spruce in Central Europe, its original natural range was considerably smaller. The species occurred in mountain massifs of the Alpine, Hercynian and Carpathian regions. Its present distribution originates from the reforestation of extensive clear-cut areas carried out in the second half of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries in the zone of fir/beech and beech plant communities and also in the oak/beech and oak zones. The history of spruce monoculture distribution is also similar in the other Central European countries where the intensive economic development increased the wood consumption. An effort to achieve maximum financial benefits resulted in the use of species with wellprocessable and, therefore, marketable wood, i.e. particularly Norway spruce and Scots pine. Due to the origin of extensive spruce monocultures, new problems and stress conditions occurred: the changes in the root system; distribution within the soil profile; changes in humus forms; increasing nitrogen deficit; soil acidification; decreasing biodiversity; negative effects of snow, wind and ice; effects of insect pests; effects of air pollution; and effects of clear cutting. In the course of the workshop, many of the problems mentioned above were discussed. It was recommended to continue the analysis of restoration to forests characterized by a higher ecological stability, productivity and biodiversity. It was also recommended to organize further scientific seminars and workshops, as well as experiments in various site conditions, and establish a permanent exchange of information among the scientific institutions in Europe.]

The use of monocultures is a legitimate incitant ofi disease and pest issues.

My Pforess of tree pathology James W. Gerdemann suggested must of tess issues can be avoided by using no more than 10% of one tree species and the mixturres may have losses but they will less severe and manageable.

In US the monocultures of elms are a prime example of unsustainable management created from the perennial monocultures of trees.