The Ideal Vegetative Aesthetic for Houston

[mollusk]

You want examples of rare, endangered prairie species?  OKfine.  Starting with birds:

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-attwater-prairie-chicken-murder-mystery-endangered-species/

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/w/whooping-crane/

 

[Luminare]

3 hours ago, AnTonY said:

^^^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.

 

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

[ADCS]

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.

[august948]

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.

[mollusk]

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, just as much as beauty is.  Some people like prairies.

[AnTonY]

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.

Edited March 26, 2019 by AnTonY

[AnTonY]

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

[august948]

10 hours ago, AnTonY said:

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

 

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.

[s3mh]

11 hours ago, AnTonY said:

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

 

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.  

[Luminare]

2 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.  

 

For some reason I already know exactly what this persons response is going to be to this. Whomever this person is is very predictable. Even though this persons ideas are pretty out there, I'm sure all of us would be willing to listen to this person and play with it as a hypothetical (thought experiments are a lot of fun) if this person was willing to listen to others, or even have respect for info they can provide. Such a waste of a potentially good mind drunk on his/her own arrogance/intelligence.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Luminare

[AnTonY]

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. 😊

[Reefmonkey]

11 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

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. 😊

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[s3mh]

13 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

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.  

[august948]

14 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

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.

Edited March 27, 2019 by august948

[AnTonY]

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.

[AnTonY]

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.

[AnTonY]

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.

[Reefmonkey]

3 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

"Even when they go to the prairie, the birds are looking for TREES to rest and stopover on during their long journeys."

 

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.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[s3mh]

39 minutes ago, AnTonY said:

 

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.

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.

 

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.  

[Reefmonkey]

7 minutes 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.  

 

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

Edited March 27, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[august948]

5 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

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.

 

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".

[AnTonY]

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.

[AnTonY]

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.

[AnTonY]

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.

Edited March 28, 2019 by AnTonY

[AnTonY]

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.

[Reefmonkey]

10 hours ago, AnTonY said:

 

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? 🙄

 

For all your throwing around the stupid word “flex” to describe my comments, all you’re doing is talking circles around the issue to try to distract people from the hole you’ve dug for yourself, just like in the Galveston water topic. Whoever said was right, you’re just a troll. 

 

Okay, give us a number of how much you think it would cost to convert all the prairie prairie soil into soil suitable for forests. 

[august948]

4 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

For all your throwing around the stupid word “flex” to describe my comments, all you’re doing is talking circles around the issue to try to distract people from the hole you’ve dug for yourself, just like in the Galveston water topic. Whoever said was right, you’re just a troll. 

 

Okay, give us a number of how much you think it would cost to convert all the prairie prairie soil into soil suitable for forests. 

 

Here's a map of the area from the KPC.

 

So AnTonY's suggestion is that we plow up this area to a depth of maybe 10 or 15 feet to remedy the soil?  Can you say ecological disaster?

 

 

[Luminare]

I'm just going to walk by and drop this off. Are these people wrong then @AnTonY ? Thats a lot of people who have a great wealth of useful experience to be wrong. Just look at all that prairie they want to implement.

 

Memorial Park Master Plan:

 

https://issuu.com/memorialparkhouston/docs/mph_mpbook_final_small_webversion_a_c7f9e7eed3d03c

[Reefmonkey]

Maybe AnTonY can get EIseed to chime in on his side: "Nah dudes, AnTonY's idea would be totally awesome. Like a cross between South Beach and the Hamptons. Maybe add a crystal clear blue lagoon. It's kinda lame as it is.You guys just have limited thinking. Not wanting to tear up natural habitat to make it 'better' is very old school Texan thinking. You have no imagination. It would be epic."

Edited March 28, 2019 by Reefmonkey

[ADCS]

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).

Edited March 28, 2019 by ADCS