AnTonY

6 hours ago, ADCS said:

Houston has had inordinate wealth and ambitious people for over 120 years now. Lush subtropical forests have been popular for ~200 years now. City beautification efforts have been popular since the turn of the last century.

 

Which is to say... if this were an easy process, there’s no reason to think it would not have been done already. So a reasonable assumption is that this is not an easy process.

 

If something seems obvious, and hasn’t been done, your first assumption should never be that people were lazy or stupid. There’s either a good reason, or a predictable one (like corruption or greed).

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.

3 hours ago, august948 said:

 

You are comparing apples and oranges here.  I didn't say that theoretically someone couldn't plant a forest.  I'm saying no one is going to.  If anything, the opposite is true.  There is at least one organization that I know of dedicated to purchasing or otherwise getting land set-asides to preserve the prairie.

 

As for your qualifier, a number of valid reasons have been presented any one of which, by definition, meets the criteria of "name a single reason".

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

7 hours ago, s3mh said:

Forests and prairies are both great for water quality.  But you want a prairie up against your coastal estuary environment because it is much better at withstanding floods/droughts than forested land.  That is why you see wooded areas further inland and closer to waterways with prairies filling up the rest of the land mass in natural areas like Brazoria, San Bernard

and McFaddin NWR.  If you rip out prairie and replace it with a forest that dies off in a drought, you will have a big ecological mess on your hands.  

7 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

I just wanted to single out and emphasize this excellent point that is the central issue in this discussion.

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.

6 hours ago, s3mh said:

You are a troll.  You cannot swap out the prairie habitat for various ponds and waterways in a forest environment.  The main reason so many ducks, geese, waders, etc. flock to the prairie is for food.  Prairie pot holes and wetlands are full of food for these birds.  Bugs, seeds, plant tubers, grains, berries, insects, earthworms, mice, snakes, lizards, frogs and crayfish are in abundance in prairie habitats but do not exist in woodland environments, even when there are ponds, streams, etc.  Just go to the Katy Prairie or Brazoria NWR in the spring and then go to a wooded area and compare the number of ducks, geese, etc. that you see.  Passerines do not need the prairies.  They generally will stop to rest north of I-10 in wooded areas when migrating when wind currents are favorable.  The coastal "migrant traps" are critical when there are fall out conditions.  But, again, you will do way more harm getting rid of prairie habitat than any benefit gained from adding wooded habitat when it comes to birds.

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.

5 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

He was stating that the discussion was academic, for several reasons, including, unfortunately, that people are still intent on building tract homes on the prairie. That does not "defeat his argument" that converting prairies to forests is an ecologically foolhardy suggestion.

The discussion may be academic, but ideals do change.

5 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

No, soil is not the "true influencer" you are being ridiculously reductivist, it's soil, it's rainfall, but as I said before, it's not just average annual rainfall that matters in supporting forest, it's rainfall patterns, seasonal rainfall, so if you have marginal soils for forest AND they're getting plenty of rain, but it's coming at the wrong time of the year for trees' growing cycle, and you don't have close-enough spaced local watersheds, you're going to get prairie in between your riparian forests.

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.

6 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

Even if you were right and soil type were the predominant factor, that would make your argument for "wiping the entire prairie out, and replacing it with subtropical jungle forests" a stupid idea that would never work. If soil is the reason it can't grow forests, how the hell do you think we're going to replace all the soil on the coastal prairie?

Oh gee, I don't know, take the obvious stepwise format to the earthwork and plantings? 🙄

6 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

When you look at the soil types of Harris County, roughly below I-10 we are dominated by the Midland-Beaumont association: poorly drained, very slowly permeable, loamy and clayey soils. Yes, that's a very hard soil type to grow forest on. Except, this type extends all the way up into the extreme northeast part of Harris County where it hits Liberty County, which is all dense pine forest. So obviously soil type isn't all that's going on here.

 

And that kind of soil isn't predominant everywhere. North of I-10, the Clodine-Addicks-Gessner association predominates. It's a loamy, poorly drained, moderately permeable soil, yet it supports dense pine forest east of 290 all the way to past 59 North , transitioning to open woodland and prairie west of 290. So obviously soil type isn't the driving factor on that soil type, either. And Clodine-Addicks-Gessner association transitions to Katy-Aris association west of Highway 6. Katy-Aris is actually a little better soil for forests in some ways than Clodine-Addicks association, but we know what the landscape looks like west of Highway 6, now don't we?

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.

6 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

No. Not all bird species are looking for trees. And then we have all the other avian and nonavian nonmigratory species that are specifically adapted to prairie life. And prairies are actually the more endangered habitat. We actually have more forest than we did 100 years ago, but prairies are diminishing.

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.

33 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

I'm afraid you're confused.  I merely pointed out the reality of the situation, which contradicts your yearning for forests instead of prairie.  I can't defeat an argument I didn't make.  Straw man anyone?

 

As for the criterion, that's subjective.

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.

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

 

You are almost trolling at this point, but I will bite.  Native prairie grasses have very deep and dense root systems that are very spongy.  When you get heavy rains, the prairie grasses are very good at soaking up the rain and the density of the grasses and their root systems keeps the soil from eroding in runoff.  Also, the dense root systems are very good at filtering out pollutants.  The filtering capacity of prairies is far superior to forests as the roots are less dense and there is more runoff and erosion.

 

Ducks, geese, sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, and other wading birds  need wetlands.  Prairies are full of wetland environments that are critical habitat for these birds.  Warblers, sparrows, finches, flycatchers, etc. do need forests, but there is no benefit to these birds in expanding forests by eliminating prairies.  

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.

2 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

"failed the criterion," ie, your narrow criterion that is out of touch with the realities of the local ecology. August498 doesn't "defeat his own argument", he makes an argument for preserving the prairies and not allowing any more building on them. The threat of development is still no valid argument for turning it into forest.

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.

2 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

Prairies are better than forests because they are the ecosystem that is adapted to that location, and no, it's not "just soil", it's rainfall, both total rainfall and rainfall patterns. There is a reason the Piney Woods give way to the Post Oak Savannah in the northwest part of the area and the prairies in the west and southwest parts. As you move east to west, rainfall is lower, surface water sources are farther apart, and groundwater is often deeper, too. Compare Sam Houston National Forest, with annual rainfall close to 140 inches, with Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge, at around 55 inches.

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:

Quote

Coastal prairies receive approximately 142 cm, or 56 inches, of rain each year. Ordinarily this amount of rainfall would lead to forest cover types, but the underlying claypan soil inhibited root penetration by larger, woody species allowing the coastal grasslands to thrive.

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.

3 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

Saying "industry is doing more damage to water quality than habitat conversion would" is still not an argument in favor of habitat conversion, even if it were possible to sustain the habitat conversion, which it likely would not be, see above.

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.

3 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

As for migrations, dbigtex56 already touched on this, and it demonstrates yet another area where you are woefully uninformed. Not every species of migrating bird looks for forest. Sandhill cranes, for instance, don't ever live in forests. They breed on open tundra in the summer, and overwinter on our prairies. There are many bird species, both migratory and nonmigratory (as well as other plant and animal species) that require prairie habitats.

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.

11 hours ago, Ross said:

Example? Keep in mind what I posted previously about the North and South Jetties and the way they block sand migration and exist to keep the Ship Channel viable.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/walls-won-t-save-our-cities-rising-seas-here-s-ncna786811

2 hours ago, mollusk said:

Can you point us to a source for the idea that Galveston's dunes were 20 feet tall?  Or perhaps some less developed barrier island on the Gulf coast that has such a thing?

 

The city was raised with sand dredged from the harbor.  https://www.asce.org/project/galveston-seawall-and-grade-raising-project/ 

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.

45 minutes ago, arche_787 said:

The Seawall is an imperfect structure, however, a 20’ sand dune would be eroded by a catagory 4-5 hurricane.

 

Forr what it’s worth the Seawall is an impressive construct.  That and the grade raising is why Galveston was not destroyed in: 1915, 1961 (Carla), 2008 (Ike)... I’m missing another few dates from post Grade Raising.

 

You couldn’t adequately protect a modern city with sand.  The Japanese build tsunami barriers around all their coastal cities.  A storm surge may not be as instantly dramatic, but it still can rip structures from foundations.

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.

9 hours ago, august948 said:

 

After all this there have been several answers as to why preserving the prairies are worthwhile...you have just chosen to ignore or dismiss them.  At any rate, this is just an academic exercise as the prairie will never be a forest due to the soil chemistry, it's current use in agriculture and it's future use for master planned communities.

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. 

8 hours ago, s3mh said:

 

The coastal prairies south of I-10 help set up the water quality and the environment for the coastal estuaries.  The coastal estuaries are responsible for about half of the seafood production for the Gulf of Mexico fisheries.  If you replace these prairies with forests, the estuaries will suffer.  That is why so much work has been done to try to fight off Chinese Tallow trees.  

 

The prairies north of I-10 are critical habitat for migratory waterfowl.  Houston is a choke point on the North American Migratory Flyway.  Significant habitat loss in our area has national implications.  

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?

6 hours ago, Luminare said:

For some reason I already know exactly what this persons response is going to be to this. 

Check and verify if your hunch was correct. 😊

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

6 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Hey there....want a shovel? You seem to just keep digging deeper and deeper.

Why not? After all, you yourself told me that this issue was of high complexity.

3 hours ago, ADCS said:

Tens of millions of years have conspired to make the Texas Coastal Prairie ugly as sin and nigh-uninhabitable to pre-modern humans. It's also a paradise to countless other species. We've only got cities here because of physical geography, not ecology.

 

Try as you might, what's aesthetically pleasing will only exist in pockets here. But that's OK - there are plenty of pretty places within a few hours drive. Quit picking on the ugly - it never did anything to you.

Boring cliche post.

3 hours ago, august948 said:

Wish as you may, the soil in the Katy Prairie isn't conducive to forests.  If it was...surprise...there would be forests there.  The only forests that will ever be planted on that prairie will have 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths.  Those forests are growing at a brisk pace.

I'm well aware of that.

3 hours ago, mollusk said:

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, just as much as beauty is.

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.

On 3/24/2019 at 9:21 AM, Ross said:

Um, no. It's not. If the North and South jetties weren't there, you might have an argument, but the jetties prevent sand replenishment, so the beaches would be disappearing anyway. Since the jetties prevent sand from blocking Bolivar Roads, they aren't going anywhere. In addition, the Seawall not only protects the city from hurricanes, it also provides support for the sand and soil that raised the level of the island by something like 10 feet after the 1900 hurricane. Without the Seawall and the raised elevation, the North end of Galveston Island would have suffered the same washover effects that the Bolivar peninsula did during Ike.

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.

3 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

Biodiversity doesn’t just come from saving the ecosystems that are “the most” biodiverse, but also from having a diversity of ecosystems, and prairies are actually one of the most imperiled ecosystems in the country, while forests have been growing for the past 100 years. Not to mention, there isn’t just one “prairie ecosystem “, there is short grass prairie, tall grass prairie, black land prairie, southern prairie ecosystems, northern prairie ecosystems....once again, you really have no idea what you’re talking about. 

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.

6 hours ago, Ross said:

The Seawall wasn't built to save the beach. It was built to protect the City of Galveston from hurricanes.

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.

3 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

That's the very anthropocentric view of the world that has caused not only so much environmental degradation, but also imperiled human structures and lives, this idea that if a natural landscape isn't aesthetically pleasing or "useful" to humans there is no benefit to keeping it and it should be reformed into something else. This is what happened with the Everglades and mangroves of South Florida, just seen as ugly, alligator-infested swamp. Areas of glades were drained and tract housing put in, and mangroves chopped down to give people waterfront property.  The reduced surface water in the glades almost immediately led to saltwater intrusion in the Biscayne Aquifer, the Miami area's main water supply, and the mangroves had been buffering the land from storm surges, so their loss meant greater damage to property from hurricanes. If you want more information on this, The Gulf: The Making of an American Sea by Jack E Davis is a fantastic read. Lots of unforeseen consequences to reshaping land to what is "better" for humans.

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.

2 hours ago, dbigtex56 said:

I am trying, without success, to picture migrating ducks, geese, cranes, etc. happily perched in one of your mythic tropical forests. 

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

5 hours ago, Ross said:

I don't see unending development of the island as a positive or an improvement. But, it's not my property, so I have no control over it.

That was my point.

5 hours ago, Ross said:

Do you know why the Seawall is there? Why it was built?

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

9 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

Well, we all now certainly know where you stand. 

On the shoulders of giants 😋

7 hours ago, august948 said:

 

Do you mean this prairie?

 

http://www.katyprairie.org/flooding

http://www.katyprairie.org/land-conservation

 

You do live in Houston, right?  You have been outside the city limits, right?

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.

2 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

So I’m guessing you haven’t actually maintained a garden in Houston. My read of you is you seem fairly young and full of yourself without the life experience to have learned how much you don’t really understand- Luminaire was right, “arrogance.” And he touched the surface when he spoke about the divide between what you know and don’t know, but it goes deeper than that, as this thread and the one on Galveston beaches demonstrates, you have a skill for regurgitating googled information, but very limited capacity for understanding what you’re regurgitating. If you really think prairies only exist because of the soil type and wiping them out and replacing them with forests would not cause any harm, you have so, so many deficiencies in your understanding of ecology that it would be hard to know where to begin, even if you hadn’t already displayed a resistance to accepting when you’re wrong. 

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.

4 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

I think you also have to take into account your architecture and the dominant architecture of your neighborhood. If your neighborhood is all brick Georgians, palm trees and philodendrons are going to look ridiculous, you're going to want to go with a more traditional temperate American landscape. On the other hand, a red tile roof and spanish style stucco practically screams for tropical to me (but again, my mom grew up in Coral Gables) and would look dumb with more formal temperate planting. And then there are plenty of architectural styles that could go either way, like craftsman or modern.

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

5 hours ago, Luminare said:

The distinctions are clear here in what you are knowledgeable in and what you aren't. Claiming that what you are either proposing or the subject we are discussing isn't "challenging or complicated" is the pinnacle of arrogance. This would be like me reading your climate analysis, and claim that "oh well I don't know what the big deal is. Its not challenging or complicated!" Try walking in my shoes as someone who is in the design/architecture discipline and you will understand just how complicated it is. I'm not here to rank or ask whether which is more complicated, design or weather, but they are both incredibly complicated and challenging to get right. If it were easy do you think we would have done all of what you proposing, or plant the right trees, and design all the right things? The fact this isn't a regular occurrence means is insanely complicated. 

4 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

 

Can I ask you a question - how much gardening do you do? Do you have a garden? I'm pretty serious about it, and I can tell you soil is not the only issue.  My vegetable garden is a raised bed, I brought in compost and expanded shale, etc, to make my own good soil so I wouldn't have to deal with our native soil. I still have to deal with our extremely variable climate, sudden cold snaps as late as March, torrential rains that can drown everything out, followed by weeks of parched heat waves with temps above 100 and no rain in sight. Not to mention insects, fungal infections. Yes, winters have become shorter, summers rainier, etc., but it is still a highly variable climate. Any time you bring in plant species that didn't evolve to handle our variable climate, you're dealing with more than just soil.

 

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.

4 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

I am going to assume that you are employing extreme hyperbole here as a rhetorical device to make a point. I hope we've gotten beyond hubristic ideas like 19th Century "rain follows the plow" or early 20th Century attitudes like draining the ugly ol' Everglades to make South Florida a tropical paradise for people. The prairie is obviously there because it is the ecosystem best adapted to the conditions.

 

Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were hyperbolizing, I am going to agree with what I think is your point. As a scientist I can appreciate the prairie ecosystem for what it is, and I also enjoy hiking and mountain biking through the native riparian woods along Buffalo Bayou and in George Bush Park. They're all natural and beautiful. But neither is the way I want to landscape my yard, and really I think that's what we're talking about here, landscaping, not our native ecosystems. I will use a native plant if I like the way it looks, partly because I know it will also be easier to care for, but I won't use a plant I would otherwise ignore just because it is native. As long as we aren't planting invasive species, I don't think we have to be zealots about only planting native species.

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.