'Elimination' predicted for ash trees

Grumpy Morbid Alert

Let's hope, with a bit of care we can all be around for the foreseeable future.

Bags do all species inevitably become extinct sooner or later?

I hope not. Very few people picked up on my point about grasses. If (when?) they are attacked and wiped out by some disease/parasite/whatever then that is the end of life as we know it on this planet. All animals that eat grasses, cows, sheep, rabbits, horses, etc. will die out as will those who are further up the food chain. All the grasses that we rely on for food; wheat, oats, maize, rice, etc. will no longer be available.

So yes, we must look after our planet, if we want a balanced and varied ecosystem but also for our own survival. We are only caretakers for future generations.

In fact the spread of these new tree diseases could be partly due to climate change.

Becoming extinct - another aspect is that if the climate on earth continues to get warmer some species are bound to become extinct in some places, then start to thrive elsewhere.
Our area is mostly maize-growing, but there was a very long drought last late summer, and there wasn't enough water to irrigate .
The cost of water for farmers is going up, so many won't be able to afford to grow maize, will switch to something else.

Agreed. We should do whatever we can but we should not expect stasis.

There are different concepts here.

It is a fact that things do become extinct, for many reasons and this cannot always be prevented. The earth will become extinct oneday, about 7.6 billion years, give or take a year.

Humans have been responsible for so many extinctions be it as a result of greed, ignorance, cruelty etc.

Where possible we should prevent/slow further extinctions.

I don't agree that we should necessarily try to prevent the extinction of any and every species, partly because it would depend on what and how much of our resources we would have to expend on the effort. I can imagine scenarios where such efforts would use up too much of our resources that could be more usefully deployed in, say, preventing child deaths from malaria. I guess I'm saying that I don't think saving species per se is always going to be the right thing to do.

However, if anyone wants to use their own personal resources and energy on saving any particular species, or several, then they can just go ahead. I'm all for freedom.

I don't disagree with your post of 08:56:41, pompa. I think I value species as much as anyone else, but I also accept that they go extinct. We can't know for sure that ash trees will become extinct, especially as we could probably use genetic engineering to prevent it, if we so chose. I read a story yesterday about English elms in New York, which have now succumbed to Dutch Elm disease. Apparently genetic engineering would help them but people are so opposed to GM, even when it is for good, like saving a species, that it's unlikely that they will be saved. How many of you who are so shocked at what I've said so far would support GM as a way to save ash trees or any other plant you feel is important enough to be saved?

I think people have not understood my underlying points:

1 It is simply a fact that all species go extinct sooner or later because that is how life works. You don't have to 'like' that fact to simply accept it, which is what I was saying in the OP.

2 I do not think it is our fault that ash trees are now afflicted with the fungal dieback disease, nor the ash borer beetle. Those events are also part of how life works. I'm not saying we never cause such things, but I don't think this one is our fault any more than the existence of flu and pneumonia are our fault.

3 If we can prevent the extinction of European ash trees, I'm all for it but I am unemotional about the possibility that we might not be able to and I find comments like the one Monty Don made tiresome and unhelpful.

When someone gets cancer etc, do we say "That's Life" and give up on them ? Are all plants, creatures etc not as important to the planet as humans.
I the same way that we work to eliminate cancer, and help prevent the extinction of a single human, we should work to prevent the extinction of all life.

Two friends walking along a beach, there were thousands of stranded star fish on the sand, one friend picks one up and throws it back into the sea, the other one says "what's the point, one doesn't matter, there are thousands" the other says "it did to that one"

Suppose the next country to endure an earthquake or tsunami we don't give aid we tell them to deal with it, suck it up - vulgar expression - , we have such a beautiful world and it for us to treasure and protect it

What's the point of teaching our children and grandchildren about respect for the environment, and then saying it doesn't matter if a species disappears because it's what happens in nature?
When a tsunami happens, or an earthquake, do we say, tough, it's what happens, you shouldn't have lived there, or do we try to help those affected by whatever means we can?

Exactly, Tricia, we try and help ash trees to recover using science. I would have thought bags would appreciate that. That's positive.

Bravo Pompa.

Jen, how wonderful to own woodland

Tricia, I hope it works, the ash is so beautiful, all trees are

Jalima, no idea what word describes my post on planting for the bees and butterflies , , suppose it was a polite reply to the O/P which was rubbish , I will not 'deal with it 'when it comes to loss of creature , plant or tree , I will do what I can to prevent the loss no matter how insignificant my effort is , so six more shrubs being planted this weekend to encourage butterflies and bees .

I think there was an item on Countryfile a few weeks ago about an experiment with ash trees - feeding them from the roots with some sort of booster mixture. This seemed to build up their resistance to the fungus, and they were able to fight the invasion and survive.

"So What" ???

IMO, we should never just accept the extinction of any species if there is anything we can do to prevent it.
Even something as apparently useless as the small pox virus, whilst it has been eradicated is not extinct, it still lives in laboratories, and one day we may find a medical use for it..
In the instance of ash trees, ash wood has unique properties amongst timbers that have been exploited throughout history.
Every species on earth (and beyond) is to be valued and maintained wherever possible. Man may be one of those species eventually.

Sorry, but your negative view started this thread. You are saying that it doesn't matter if a native species disappears it doesn't matter.
Some of us beg to differ. Whatever you have in your large garden, I doubt it would make up 95% of any species.

Anyway, I'll still give money to and buy trees for the Woodland Trust.
I do not have a large garden, but I have bought over an acre of woodland, which includes many ash. I find that a very positive thing to do. I have studied ecology, by the way. I know what happens in woodland. I also know that man is responsible for a lot of ecological problems and reduction of woodland is one of them.

I'll carry on believing Woodland Trust statistics.

That's

Trailing St.John's-wort

and Bifid Hemp-nettle

Why is it assumed that any space made by dying ash trees will be filled with non-native species? What evidence is there to support that rather than the idea that other native species will fill the gaps? What takes their place partly depends on what is around, plus several other variables.

Recently (autumn 2014) I cleared (hacked back) some of the Grey Sallow that grows in my garden. It was filling a space of about 60 square metres so that it was becoming impossible to access a corner of the garden. In the space I cleared these species appeared: Trailing St.John's-wort, Bifid Hemp-nettle (neither of these two, which are native species, had appeared in the garden before, but perhaps they blew in or perhaps their seeds were lying dormant and waiting for some space and light to thrive), foxglove, several species of moss, beech, rowan, holly, several species of mushroom, wild raspberry, and bramble. At least those are the ones I remember without going up there to check. oh wait! there were Himalayan Balsam seedlings too because there's some of that over the fence in the farm track beyond. I pulled those up, but even if I hadn't I doubt they would have smothered the young trees, whereas the native grey sallow did.

So, yes, non-native species might fill spaces left by dead trees but equally they might not. It depends on more variables than the appearance of some space where there wasn't before.

And besides, that's what happens in woods anyway! Trees die and new things, not always the same species, take their place.

I think a lot of people have a much more negative view of Nature (I include humanity in that word) than I have.

Ash trees are native, though, and it's believed that 95% will disappear. That means there will be a lot of space for non-native trees, which will not be good for our native insect species.
Surely the most important part of nature is its diversity.
Just look at the problem of the grey squirrel, an invasive species which many people do not like, preferring the native red squirrel. What's wrong with that?
I know that the grey squirrel is the fittest to survive, but why should we not prefer the native red and try to keep it alive in certain areas?

Surely humans are the only species which can help other species - apart, obviously, from those that exist by symbiosis.
By the way, suck it up is a horrible phrase, in my opinion.

anniebach I realise you were being ironic (is that the right word?)

ab, I was talking about one particular possible elimination. That is all.

English elms were not altogether eliminated. I suspect the same will be true of ash trees. That outcome is at least as possible, and I think more likely, than complete elimination. And if we're sensible we could use genetic knowledge to clone theones that are resistant to the disease and the beetle infestations.

triciaf, sycamores are not native and where I live they are certainly invasive. I pull up dozens of seedling every year from my garden. They can be very nice trees though, like most maples, and I've no objection to the fully grown ones near me. It's just the seedlings that are a pest, as are ash seedlings, holly seedling, cotoneaster seedlings, spruce seedlings, downy birch seedlings, and more.

No, jess, I'm not tired of it because it's wrongly used. I think that, again, it's because of the emotional element that seems to be attached to its use; it almost as if we have to hate all invasive species. At the same time exotic plants are brought into the country all the time, including by botanists. I think I find it irritating because the whole thing seems so "cake and eat it". I suppose what I'd like is for people either to complain and stop bringing in potential invasives or carry on bringing them in but stop complaining.

Near me Himalayan Balsam thrives. It's a non-native invasive plant. I pull it up in the actual garden but there's still masses of it all around. Bees love it. Likewise rosebay willowherb. Roe deer like eating that, young shoots before they flower.

I also have quite a few native plants in my garden that are decidedly invasive in the sense of crowding out other native plants if left to their own devices.

The Death of Grass is a novel by John Christopher.

If bees die off, we do, too. So I think we should all be bothered about that.
Unless you accept the extinction of the human race, which is the corollary to the OP.

That's what I have been doing * annie* Apparently they like open faces on flowers it gives them a good landing base

I will Jalima, I will not accept that we can do nothing

Seems I am wasting time and money buying and planting to encourage bees and butterflies, I must accept their extinction will just be part of the cycle of nature

No! We should all be doing that