AnTonY

There's also the simple fact that the people back then did not have as accurate of an understanding regarding the circumstances here, nor did they have the technological capability to deal with it.

@s3mh provided the closest thing to a decent answer in this thread. And even then, his argument still didn't hold up.

Drought is sort of an overstated issue, because it isn't really a problem for Houston/SE Texas like it is in the rest of the state. In fact, you're more likely to experience severe summer droughts/heat waves in the actual forests of the Piney Woods than in much of the Houston area. Texarkana, for instance, has seen temps as high as 117F. I said this earlier, but most issues with drought here in Houston are indirect, in that the clay soil makes it more of an issue than would otherwise be. Conversion of that soil, as would be done to establish forest, would minimize the issues of drought (greater permeability = more water available for tree roots). That being said, risks are minimized by starting with eastern metro areas like Houston Hobby/Pearland and Galveston Bay/coast. These areas offer the mildest climate in the Houston area, and so can handle more tender trees. Going farther inland and (north) west, the species gradually get hardier.

Laughable. Every single one of those food sources and/or creatures you named are found, if anything, in greater abundance among forest land than in prairies. And all the species that need open land would still find it across many areas of forests.

The discussion may be academic, but ideals do change. Nope, no reductionism, you're just too busy flexing to grasp the nuance that relates to the simple fact. While there are indeed several factors at hand, soil, by far, remains the most important factor when it comes to why the prairie here even exists. It's not hard to figure that out, just simply look at where the prairie covers, then look at the annual rainfall map: the prairie goes all the way into Louisiana, into areas that are wetter than the Piney Woods....throughout the year (making the seasonal cycles moot). And even in regards to seasonal cycles....the areas closer to the coast in the prairie are cooler and wetter during summer (where rainfall is needed most) than areas farther inland (which may get more winter rainfall ... a time of year that is irrelevant when everything is dormant). And like I said, even the far western areas of Houston and Texas Gulf are still wet enough for forest. There's such a thing as "dry forest," you know. Oh gee, I don't know, take the obvious stepwise format to the earthwork and plantings? 🙄 Keep in mind that an association simply refers to the parent material, which gives way to different soil forms (loamy, sandy, and clayey). So with Midland-Beaumont association, the hard, clayey portion obviously corresponds to the prairie, while the easier, loamy areas would correspond to the forests. Not to mention that soil divisions obviously don't follow clean lines in real life vs the more broader depictions on the map. Right, and those animals that don't need forests would still have plenty of open land available for them amongst the woods. Prairies may well be endangered on a world-wide viewpoint, but in terms of strictly this Texas coastal prairie, wiping it out won't really lead to any real repercussions.

Except that there's nothing that says areas dedicated to forest can't exist alongside agricultural lands and neighborhoods. So no contradiction there. Of course there's a subjective component to these matters, hence why I specified my qualifier: name a single reason to preserve these prairies that won't be better served by a forest.

First off, soils in forest lands don't cause as much runoff issues in the first place, because they tend to be better drained/permeabile than those under prairies, meaning that more of the water goes to recharge the underground aquifer. Second, the root system of any tree includes both depth (taproot) and lateral anchoring, far superior to any grass when it comes to holding the soil. As I mentioned before, the converted habitat would still have the coast, along with the numerous ponds, waterways, etc, which leaves more than enough room for all those waterfowl. Meanwhile, the perching birds definitely have more resting spots, easy food access, coverage, etc in forests than in prairies. Biodiversity improves. Those birds all have superior resting areas, combined with more shadow to allow shade tolerant plants, while still having enough openings for the sun-loving species that grow in the prairies.

The poster was listing reasons why the conversion wouldn't go through, two of which are practices that would also wipe out the prairie (agriculture and MPC building). At least the conversion would actually enhance the ecology of the area. If the existence was truly from the rainfall gradient, then the coastal prairie would be following more of an east-west line. But look at the actual coverage, it basically hugs the entire Texas coast, and runs into a triangular notch in SW Louisiana. Which means that the prairie covers areas like Central Houston, Beaumont, and SW Louisiana that receive more rainfall than SHNF and other areas of the Piney Woods (which is nowhere near 140 inches). Ergo, climate is definitely not the major factor when it comes to the existence of the prairie. Which leaves soil as the true influencer, as explained in the first link: Dryness becomes more of a factor going west, as well as heading south along the coast towards Corpus and Brownsville, but even these areas are still wet enough to support forest (albeit shrubbier and more drought tolerant). The true climate transition doesn't begin until you get to the Cross Timbers. There was no argument at that point of the post, it was just part of an inquiry regarding the supposed benefits of prairies over forests that the poster was suggesting. Even when they go to the prairie, the birds are looking for TREES to rest and stopover on during their long journeys. Hence why the conservancies emphasize the importance of "mottes." Therefore, the habitat conversion would result in an offering of that biological ammentie to the nth degree. Even in the absence of prairie, the waterways and coast would provide more than enough open area for birds like the sandhill crane.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/walls-won-t-save-our-cities-rising-seas-here-s-ncna786811 Here's a pdf that explains it. Although dunes peaked to 20ft+, the average height was 12-15ft. Still enough to protect the city, had they not been removed for fill and beach access.

20ft is taller than the height of the SeaWall. Then again, I never exactly said that sand would be enough for protection. Instead, a more modern coastal protection method that balances with the environment would be ideal.

The answers weren't satisfactory because they failed the criterion. And then you bring up potential for conversion to MPCs, meaning that the prairie may not be preserved anyway, ergo you defeated your own argument. FINALLY a somewhat decent answer. I'd certainly agree that the estuaries and coast present important assets for the Houston metro. And as I mentioned earlier this thread, I despise the Chinese Tallow, and don't see them as quality forest trees here. Good to see them being wiped out. But can you elaborate on these unique properties of prairies such that they help the water quality of those estuaries? Not seeing how they are any better than forests in that department, considering that the waterways that drain into those bays are already forested along their floodplains. I'd say industries like ITC are doing a lot more damage to water quality now than any habitat conversion ever will. As far as migrations, the birds need areas for stopover and rest, and what better for that than forests? Check and verify if your hunch was correct. 😊

And after all this, still no answer as to why preserving the prairies are worthwhile...

Why not? After all, you yourself told me that this issue was of high complexity. Boring cliche post. I'm well aware of that. Good, now bring me some honey.

^^^I'm not actually advocating anything in so much as I'm saying that I'm not seeing the issue if that habitat were to be transformed. It's not like the Amazon where there are hundreds of unique creatures. Even the Serengeti of Africa, also a grass-based ecosystem, at least provides some unique interest.

The SeaWall is one of those enigmas where it was best for that time period, but is due for replacement with more refined methods thanks to understanding gained over the decades. Sort of like the changes in how Houston interacted with its bayous (from concrete channels to greenway parks). They protect the island at the cost of rapid beach erosion, thankfully, those jetties allow East Beach to continue growing. And San Luis Pass naturally ebbs and flows due to tidal location. Galveston sand dunes were actually up to 20ft in height, but they were removed for fill and beach access when the city was being built.

Nope, my ideas are sound, you're just being defensive for the sake of it (same as others on this thread). No one here has named a single unique aspect about the coastal Texas prairie that would make it worthy of preservation, and not better off as forest. I need to see a sizable amount of rare, endemic species, then maybe I'd see the point.

And like I said, by not saving the beach, the SeaWall is leading to slow, but sure, destruction of the island. The event that you wish not to occur.

The difference is that the Everglades actually contains unique, interesting biodiversity that makes it worth preserving on its own merit. Where is the unique biodiversity of the coastal Texas prairie, all I see are the same old grasses that grow all over the Midwest. I'll check out the book, though, it seems like an interesting read. Thanks.

...Along the numerous waterways that would still exist.

That was my point. Yes. Too bad that one-time save lead to its own issues. No wonder South Carolina banned them.

On the shoulders of giants 😋 Yes, those ones. There seem to be no real benefits to the prairies that forested land can't do a better job of.

Obviously you don't just build a bunch of high-end beach houses for the sake of it, but I see no issue with such developments arising as the island improves itself. Now, if you want to see a structure that is truly destroying Galveston, look no further than the SeaWall and its eroded beaches.

You can deduce all you can about me to your heart's content, but those facts still remain. Google is only but a tool amongst the logical framework of my arguments. Look at the climate across Greater Houston. It is relatively uniform, which it should be given the flatness of landscape. While there are some variances between, say, Galveston and Tomball, there are no extreme climate transitions as seen around the topography of the Western US. Essentially, the climate across Houston is as you scientists like to call a "control." Therefore, the drastic intra-regional differences in natural tree coverage within the Greater Houston metro, from forest to treeless prairie, must be caused strictly by the differences in soil types. I really don't see the benefit of keeping the prairie, though. It's just flat landscape with no trees, with little value provided to the populace. What outdoor recreation is offered? What sustenance is provided? Where are the oodles of critically endangered unique organisms that would make it worth preserving at least on its own merit? Right now, it seems to me that replacing those prairies would actually be beneficial. The chinese tallow and honey mesquite has already done much of that work, anyway. All that's left is wiping out those trashy trees, and regrowing the land to true subtropical elegance.

I've never understood the prevalence of brick across many of the suburbs here. Then again, I despise suburbs here anyway.

In terms of the aesthetic I'm aiming for, soil is largely the only challenge. The other factors like weather either pose indirect challenges, in that they only become problematic through the soil, or are trivial non-factors. For example, the torrential rains are actually great weather for vegetation, but with the clay soil here, drainage is poor, increasing the occurrence of wet feet, which, in-turn, leads to greater susceptibility to the fungal infections and insect attacks that you describe. The heatwaves you described are largely a non-factor for Houston compared to areas like Austin or Dallas, but even then, the clay soil amplifies the issue due to how it gets hard and cracked to prevent easy water percolation. Many of the issues I've described above also happen with raised beds, but simply due to mistakes in creating them. Such as lack of proper elevation above the native soil that creates a "wet bucket" effect. On the other hand, forests, by nature, are more self-sustaining, so the weather poses less of an issue than with a typical home garden. And as I've mentioned, the subtropical jungle aesthetic I'm aiming for can already be accomplished just with native Southern US evergreens, such as live oaks, magnolias, pines, etc. So the concerns about droughts, freezes, and climate variability are moot. My points are that changing what is natural isn't always "bad" (which you agree with), and that the prairie here only because of the soil (i.e. edaphic). Therefore, wiping it out, and replacing it with subtropical forest will not cause any harm. If anything, it would give benefits: higher biodiversity (more trees, shade tolerant plants, bird stopover, etc), better aesthetics, more shade from the heat, productivity. And because the soil would be modified for forest growth, drainage improves, and there would be less potholes on the roads.