On Nov 14, 7:30*pm, Giles wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:03*am, Frank Reid © 2010 wrote:

There is an interesting comparison to be made here in the area/land
that I've chosen to inhabit. *I've gone totally the opposite and
decided on the forbs and grasses as a setting for a home. *No trees.
Then again, that is the nature of this area of the country. *The only
reason we've got trees is that we've stopped the prairie fires from
burning the young, woody tree trunks. *Grasses recover well from the
fire, their life is in their roots.

Fire is certainly an important factor in the predominance of grasses
over trees, not only in your area, but in many of the world's other
great grasslands as well. *But it's not the "only reason." *The
relative importance of fire varies considerably from place to place
and time to time. *Four hundred or so miles to the east of where
you're at it would quite likely have been a critical factor in
historic times. *Four hundred miles to the west it would have been
entirely unnecessary......even the tail end of the Rocky Mountains'
rain shadow would be enough to maintain the dominance of the grasses.
Various environmental factors play greater or lesser roles, but long
range average rainfall appears to be the single most significant
factor overall.

Grasses do indeed recover well after fires, but many trees are, at
least as fully mature specimens, pretty much immune to the effects of
grass fires. *The "oak openings" in the tall grass prairies of
northern Indiana and Illinois and southern Wisconsin and Michigan are
a classic example. *Mature bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) stands up very
well to prairie fires, as do analogous species in most, if not all, of
the world's major grasslands.

In any case, the tension zones between grasslands and forests are
continually in flux as a response to continually changing
environmental conditions, fire being but one of many.

I grew up in the intercoastal hills and chaparral of Southern
California. *Woody scrub interspersed with live oak. * After a fire,
the grasses would come in, for a year or two and then get crowded out
by the sage and forbs, returning it to the blue green of the
chaparral.

Interesting stuff. *Average human lifespan and rate of technological
change throughout most of history have made it seems as if typical
"natural" groundcover was as immutable as geography and geology. *But
the fact is that things change......although the laws that govern
change do not themselves change all that much. *Rainfall (for the most
part) dictated that tall grass prairies dominated in the eastern
portion of the North American grasslands and that the grasses got
correspondingly shorter to the west in response to diminishing water
supplies. *Today the vast prairies are all but gone.......but the tall
grasses (like corn) still dominate in the eastern regions (Illinois,
Iowa) and give way to shorter cousins (like wheat) further west
(Kansas, Nebraska) and others, shorter yet, as one continues westward.

Never liked the grass back then, wasn't natural. *Here it is.

The trouble now (well, ONE of the troubles) is that the grasses that
do best STILL ain't natural. * * *

Kinda sad that we have to cultivate the natural biome.

Could be worse. *Cultivating walnuts, butternuts, hazels, and
chestnuts is kinda fun. * * *

Frank Reid

You want some chestnuts to break up the monotony?

Wolfgang

And oh, by the way, my buffalo grass lawn is doing quite well and its
VERY natural.
Sure, send some chesnuts. I can plant them at the bottom of the hill
and let the grandkids throw them at each other in a few years.
Frank Reid