Tree and other plant problems as evidence for chemtrails?

[Jay Reynolds]

http://dallastrinitytrails.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-great-trinity-forests-white-rock.html

There are several thousand acres of wooded wilderness within the city limits of Dallas. I have not heard any discussion of the trees there dying off. Not only that, but Dallas county is also home to a second Audubon center in the SW corner of the county

http://www.dallascounty.org/department/plandev/locations/13-palmetto.php

That link is to a palmetto swamp in Dallas county. Other links on that page will show you several nature areas in the county of Dallas.

I am pointing these out, because Dallas is an urban area with a known ozone problem. It seems however that we have plenty of native trees that are doing well.

I grew up on the Cottonwood Creek Nature Preserve area on that list. Hunted and fished up and down that creek. We still have 13 acres for sale on the creek, 200 year old native pecan trees.
http://www.dallascounty.org/department/plandev/locations/12-cottonwood-creek.php

My own homestead is in the Ozark Mountains. I do have 65 acres of trees about 80 years old which is their climax age for the land. That is about as old as oaks get on this sort of ground. See, this land isn't naturally oak/hickory as it is presently. Natural vegetation here is Pine Prarie but about 80 years ago they started to cut the pine and ran cattle till scrub oaks moved in and created a "forest". It's not what naturally would be here at all, fire should rage through every 3-4 years and keep down all the red cedar oak and hickory, favoring native fire-resistant pine. Man kind has thus helped establish a false climax forest which isn't sustainable compared to what developed here since the last ice age. Much of our re-growth forest you see today just isn't what the original forest was. There are myriad reasons why some forest trees might not be healthy, and don't always assume it has one simple reason. Sometimes the reason for forest health was set in motion generations ago.

 

[Pete Tar]

I grew up on the Cottonwood Creek Nature Preserve area on that list. Hunted and fished up and down that creek. We still have 13 acres for sale on the creek, 200 year old native pecan trees. http://www.dallascounty.org/department/plandev/locations/12-cottonwood-creek.php My own homestead is in the Ozark Mountains. I do have 65 acres of trees about 80 years old which is their climax age for the land. ...

Lucky.

 

[Gail]

http://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/MultiState_EABpos.pdf

THAT (above) is the map of actual found EAB. The map you posted with the green area is just the states where they are looking, and looking a lot, for EAB. They haven't found hardly any - certainly not enough to cause widespread ash death - in NJ, eastern PA, NY, CT, or MA.

 

[Gail]

"You still haven't demonstrated that this is the case"

Well, I posted several peer-reviewed papers that document widespread, global forest decline. Just because you don't recognize it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Denial is a powerful human ability.

 

[Gail]

My mother (who is 80) is always telling me that trees "just don't live that long on Cape Cod" because of the soil etc. When I point out to her that there are, in fact, some surviving trees 300+ years old, she shrugs it off. Agreed, "much of our re-growth forest you see today just isn't what the original forest was". But it should be growing, and instead, it's dying.

 

[Gail]

a picture from your link http://dallastrinitytrails.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-great-trinity-forests-white-rock.html Many of the photos there can hardly be descriptive of healthy trees. As stated earlier, drought from climate change is killing trees, but also, there is no question that due to impaired root systems, trees exposed to ozone are more susceptible to drought. So, whether you want to blame drought or ozone, the notion that trees in Texas are not thriving is not in dispute (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-on-record-trees-dying-by-the-millions?lite): The Texas Forest Service says the drought may have killed as much as 10 percent of the state's trees. That's 500 million trees.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

a picture from your link http://dallastrinitytrails.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-great-trinity-forests-white-rock.html Many of the photos there can hardly be descriptive of healthy trees. As stated earlier, drought from climate change is killing trees, but also, there is no question that due to impaired root systems, trees exposed to ozone are more susceptible to drought. So, whether you want to blame drought or ozone, the notion that trees in Texas are not thriving is not in dispute (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-on-record-trees-dying-by-the-millions?lite): The Texas Forest Service says the drought may have killed as much as 10 percent of the state's trees. That's 500 million trees.
View attachment 2261

Yeah, never saw drought in Texas before....something very new and very strange to happen in a place known for always being green and lush!

 

[Belfrey]

"You still haven't demonstrated that this is the case"

Well, I posted several peer-reviewed papers that document widespread, global forest decline. Just because you don't recognize it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Denial is a powerful human ability.

Gail, none of the papers that you linked to say that "all species of trees, of all ages, in all locations, are exhibiting signs of decline." What you have done is taken papers that say that forests in many regions are having trouble for a variety of reasons, and exaggerated them to (seemingly) mean that practically every tree, everywhere is declining.

 

[Belfrey]

http://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/MultiState_EABpos.pdf

THAT (above) is the map of actual found EAB. The map you posted with the green area is just the states where they are looking, and looking a lot, for EAB. They haven't found hardly any - certainly not enough to cause widespread ash death - in NJ, eastern PA, NY, CT, or MA.

Can you document widespread anomalous ash death in areas where EAB has not established?

 

[Belfrey]

My mother (who is 80) is always telling me that trees "just don't live that long on Cape Cod" because of the soil etc. When I point out to her that there are, in fact, some surviving trees 300+ years old, she shrugs it off. Agreed, "much of our re-growth forest you see today just isn't what the original forest was". But it should be growing, and instead, it's dying.

I see forests that are growing all the time. Not just based on gut feelings, but on actual measurements of NPP and basal area.

 

[Cairenn]

If you noticed the picture from that article was of a RESIDENTIAL area. In urban areas, folks plant NON NATIVE trees and plants. These species cannot endure droughts and are also often weakened by extreme summer temperatures. Not only was the summer if 2011 one of the driest on record, it was also one of the hottest, in most of Texas.

That was the year that Texas burned. Almost 4 million acres lost to fires alone. It wasn't because of ozone, it was the LACK of water. Some reservoirs almost dried up, others got dangerously low. Watering was heavily restricted in urban areas. Many folks depend on their lawn watering to water their trees and when you can't water it, the trees suffer.

http://www.c2es.org/blog/huberd/2011-texas-drought-historical-context

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Texas_wildfires

From the beginning of the fire season to October 31, around 27,976 fires had burned 3,959,040 acres (about double the previous record), 2,862 homes (1,939 of which were destroyed over the Labor Day weekend), and over 2,700 other structures.[2] 47.3% of all acreage burned in the United States in 2011 was burned in Texas. The fires have been particularly severe due to the ongoing 2011 Southern US drought covering the state, and exacerbating the problem is rapid desertification[citation needed], the unusual convergence of strong winds, unseasonably warm temperatures, and low humidity

I don't know which of the preserves the picture you posted from or when it was taken. One picture out of a group that showed a bad tree. Those preserves, ALL of them are in the middle of an urban area, the creeks here get a lot of urban runoff. I am sure you are aware of all the nasty chemicals that can be found in that type of run off.

 

[Gail]

Cairenn, those are all strawman arguments. I never said Texas didn't have droughts. I was simply pointing out that the example you presented with your link of a healthy forest didn't look healthy at all, not just the one picture I posed but all of them.

I don't know if any of you are familiar with the concept of shifting baselines. It explains why humans often don't notice incremental change. Our brains are not genetically wired to plan for the future, and we tend to compare today to yesterday. Thus we forget that the ocean used to be full of large fish - 90% of them are gone now. We also tend to accept very sick trees as normal. I found a set of photos taken by loggers before they clear cut forests and posted them here:http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-have-all-forests-gone-long-time.html

THAT's the way trees are supposed to look. So anyway it's been very interesting talking to you all here on your metabunking site, I wish you all well, but I don't think there's much point in carrying on this conversation. I do believe that one day soon, foresters will realize that there is an overwhelming trend happening, and that a very broad cause underlies it. Right now, they are like the blind people feeling the elephant, one describing the tail and another an ear and another the trunk. Someday soon it will be impossible to avoid the totality, hopefully, before it's too late to save apples, maple syrup, peaches, almonds, and all the other wonderful gifts we get from trees.

 

[Belfrey]

THAT's the way trees are supposed to look. So anyway it's been very interesting talking to you all here on your metabunking site, I wish you all well, but I don't think there's much point in carrying on this conversation. I do believe that one day soon, foresters will realize that there is an overwhelming trend happening, and that a very broad cause underlies it. Right now, they are like the blind people feeling the elephant, one describing the tail and another an ear and another the trunk. Someday soon it will be impossible to avoid the totality, hopefully, before it's too late to save apples, maple syrup, peaches, almonds, and all the other wonderful gifts we get from trees.

Well, it would help if this "overwhelming trend" you speak of were actually demonstrated with data. If forest managers and landowners were actually seeing declines (i.e. negative trends in live standing volume) in forest stands, with "all species of trees, of all ages, in all locations, exhibiting signs of decline", believe me, they would pay attention (because it would affect their pocketbooks). But there is no evidence that standing timber volume is decreasing in the US - quite the contrary.

There certainly are forests in many regions around the world that are having trouble - and your own sources indicate that these are attributable to causes such as drought and climate change. The idea that they all indicate an influence of ozone appears to be your own personal interpretation.

 

[Gail]

You're actually wrong about that - it's not just my "personal interpretation". Take for instance the book, An Appalachian Tragedy, which I didn't write. You can get a used copy online for very little (or you can download mine online, for free http://www.deadtrees-dyingforests.com/pillage-plunder-pollute-llc/)

p. 191 from An Appalachian Tragedy:

"Even the forest products industry, whose commercial tree plantations were at risk from air pollution, maintained a posture of denial that anything was amiss. This seeming unwillingness to act to protect its assets puzzled me for some time until a timber company executive provided an off-the-record explanation. Yes, he said, the industry was worried about the deterioration of its stock of standing timber. But the big forest products corporations were worried much more about what would happen to the value of their equity if the stock markets concluded that their major asset was being depleted by pollution. Private foresters, joined in a number of instances by the U.S. Forest Service scientists, insisted that there was no widespread damage to trees and what little there was could be explained by insect damage, drought, disease, freezing temperatures - anything but air pollution."

That was published in 1998. Since the Koch brothers, whose major holdings are fossil-fuel and mining related, acquired Georgia Pacific for $21B in 2005, I should imagine this holds even more true today.

As for the ash, did you know the basesball industry is having a terrible time with bats exploding? They can't find any more good wood.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Our brains are not genetically wired to plan for the future, and we tend to compare today to yesterday.

I found a set of photos taken by loggers before they clear cut forests and posted them here:http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-have-all-forests-gone-long-time.html THAT's the way trees are supposed to look. .

Gail, you prove your own point quite well. You have compared today to yesterday.

Now, I will compare 'yesterday' with today. I just took a walk and made some photos of several trees on my property which I know the age of because I planted them myself.

Black walnut, approx 30 ft tall, when I transplanted it from the wild 20 years ago, it was a pencil thick whip 2 feet tall.



Now, at breast height, over six inches wide:



The tree is perfectly healthy, and there are four more just like it. Black walnut is an exteremly slow growing tree, BTW. I fully expect it to be a monster for my great-grandchildren

Stand of pine planted as a windbreak for a garden, 20 years growth, also planted as pencil whips:



Now, at breast height, over 8" diameter:



This red oak was not planted by me, but 20 years ago it was no more than 4 inches in diameter:



Now, at breast height, over 12 inches in diameter:



These trees are not dying. They are actively growing healthy trees.

 

[F4Jock]

The problem with the supposition that forests are dying of at an alarming rate is twofold: 1) We have no real, large scale historical levels of comparison and 2) We have little real global observations to use in supporting this thesis. (See NY Times 2011) While I agree that humans with chainsaws are an epidemic problem re deforestation, there is simply not enough data at the moment to support your over-arching pollution conclusions.

Re the "exploding" baseball bats: Many hitters have switched to Maple bats, which, while lighter thus allowing a faster swing, do not have the durability of Ash, thus they,splinter and break more readily. Every refrence I could find stated that Ash bats are not "exploding" with any more regularity than before.

 

[solrey]

Gail wrote:
As for the ash, did you know the basesball industry is having a terrible time with bats exploding? They can't find any more good wood.

The problem with broken bats in recent years has nothing to do with being unable to find any more good wood;
1) A switch to sugar maple bats due to the success of certain sluggers that swung maple bats.
2) A transition to thicker heads and thinner handles.
3) Less attention to detail of "Slope of Grain" in manufacturing.

http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/major-league-baseball-broken-bats-48576/

 

[Gail]

Jay, the lichen plastered on the bark is a sign of decline. It (the lichen) thrives on high levels of nitrogen pollution. The pine trees are abnormally thin. In a healthy stand - and not so long ago - you couldn't see through them to the other side. Where you have the close up of the pine trunk - I suggest you go outside and see how much effort is needed to break off a piece of that bark. It's splitting and loose. That's about as normal as if you tugged at your skin and it came off. In years past you would need a hammer to break off a piece of bark.

 

[Belfrey]

You're actually wrong about that - it's not just my "personal interpretation". Take for instance the book, An Appalachian Tragedy, which I didn't write. You can get a used copy online for very little (or you can download mine online, for free http://www.deadtrees-dyingforests.com/pillage-plunder-pollute-llc/)

p. 191 from An Appalachian Tragedy:

"Even the forest products industry, whose commercial tree plantations were at risk from air pollution, maintained a posture of denial that anything was amiss. This seeming unwillingness to act to protect its assets puzzled me for some time until a timber company executive provided an off-the-record explanation. Yes, he said, the industry was worried about the deterioration of its stock of standing timber. But the big forest products corporations were worried much more about what would happen to the value of their equity if the stock markets concluded that their major asset was being depleted by pollution. Private foresters, joined in a number of instances by the U.S. Forest Service scientists, insisted that there was no widespread damage to trees and what little there was could be explained by insect damage, drought, disease, freezing temperatures - anything but air pollution."

That was published in 1998. Since the Koch brothers, whose major holdings are fossil-fuel and mining related, acquired Georgia Pacific for $21B in 2005, I should imagine this holds even more true today.

As for the ash, did you know the basesball industry is having a terrible time with bats exploding? They can't find any more good wood.

Yes, your personal interpretation. That another author shares your opinions does not change that.

You haven't demonstrated that "all species of trees, of all ages, in all locations, are exhibiting signs of decline." Rather, you have found research that talks about forest decline (or in some cases, simply reduced growth over certain time periods - not the same thing as "decline") in certain regions, and you insert your own attribution (again, without evidence) to ozone.

And even your own sources don't say that all forests everywhere are in a decline. For example, in that NYT article you linked to about forest decline states that over all, forests are still accumulating net carbon - in other words, growing more than dying.

It is clear that the point of no return has not been reached yet — and it may never be. Despite the troubles of recent years, forests continue to take up a large amount of carbon, with some regions, including the Eastern United States, being especially important as global carbon absorbers.


"I think we have a situation where both the 'forces of growth' and the 'forces of death' are strengthening, and have been for some time," said Oliver L. Phillips, a prominent tropical forest researcher with the University of Leeds in England. "The latter are more eye-catching, but the former have in fact been more important so far."

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Gail,
If you want to see some big healthy trees, head down to the Corcovado National Park on the Osa peninsula of Costa Rica. It is one of the most biologcally diverse places on earth. Three years ago my son and I hiked for days into this rain forest and I did my best to capture the largest tree there, but it was quite dark so deep inside. Be careful, there are jaguars and mountain lions there. I went to the park service there asking for a map of this 250 square mile park before we went in, they told me, "No hay mapas". (There are no maps.)
Somewhere around 250 feet tall, Ceiba (Kapok) tree:

 

[F4Jock]

Jay, the lichen plastered on the bark is a sign of decline. It (the lichen) thrives on high levels of nitrogen pollution. The pine trees are abnormally thin. In a healthy stand - and not so long ago - you couldn't see through them to the other side. Where you have the close up of the pine trunk - I suggest you go outside and see how much effort is needed to break off a piece of that bark. It's splitting and loose. That's about as normal as if you tugged at your skin and it came off. In years past you would need a hammer to break off a piece of bark.

I disagree. Lichen of that ilk exists on the North side of most every tree here in the NE, especially those with shagbark. According to the Royal Horticultural Society circa 2011, these growths are generally "harmless." Furthermore, trunk diameter depends on age and other conditions such as available moisture. How about cutting one of those thin pines down and count and measure the annual rings, then compare them to growing conditions for the years the tree existed?

BTW - love your kitty!

 

[Belfrey]

Jay, the lichen plastered on the bark is a sign of decline. It (the lichen) thrives on high levels of nitrogen pollution. The pine trees are abnormally thin. In a healthy stand - and not so long ago - you couldn't see through them to the other side. Where you have the close up of the pine trunk - I suggest you go outside and see how much effort is needed to break off a piece of that bark. It's splitting and loose. That's about as normal as if you tugged at your skin and it came off. In years past you would need a hammer to break off a piece of bark.

So much incorrect information in one paragraph it's hard to know where to start. Lichens on the trunk are not an indication of a declining tree, and are often indicators of good air quality - in fact, some species are sensitive to nitrogen deposition and will die from it (see here for example). Jay's picture clearly just shows a row of planted pines, but you're also incorrect that pine forests should be very dense - the opposite was the case in most pre-settlement pine forests.

And do you really imagine that all pines everywhere now have loose bark that falls off, such that you can assume that Jay's do? As someone who often does remove bark from pines to investigate pest and disease issues, I can tell you that this is incorrect.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Jay, the lichen plastered on the bark is a sign of decline. It (the lichen) thrives on high levels of nitrogen pollution. The pine trees are abnormally thin. In a healthy stand - and not so long ago - you couldn't see through them to the other side. Where you have the close up of the pine trunk - I suggest you go outside and see how much effort is needed to break off a piece of that bark. It's splitting and loose. That's about as normal as if you tugged at your skin and it came off. In years past you would need a hammer to break off a piece of bark.

BS. Lichens grow on trees, this isn't a "sign of decline" it is a symbiotic relationship. It is springtime when the lichens are at their peak of growth. The pines are growing fine, their bark is normal. You can see through them because I planted them 3 feet apart, all survived save one a beaver cut down. You can't tell me these trees are not growing or are not healthy. I have watched them grow for 20 years! Get a grip.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I disagree. Lichen of that ilk exists on the North side of most every tree here in the NE, !

Yes, it is the north side.

 

[F4Jock]

BS. ....all survived save one a beaver cut down....

Good Grief! Can we thus link Beaver to Chemtrails?????

 

[F4Jock]

Yes, it is the north side.

Which is an old and well known woodsman's trick to determine approximate compass points w/o a compass.

 

[Belfrey]

Where you have the close up of the pine trunk - I suggest you go outside and see how much effort is needed to break off a piece of that bark. It's splitting and loose. That's about as normal as if you tugged at your skin and it came off. In years past you would need a hammer to break off a piece of bark.

I'm really puzzled over this, because anyone can go outside right now and see that the bark on the average pine tree is normal. I wonder if you mean just the outer layers of bark? Because it's totally normal for many species to be able to flake that off - it's dead tissue, just like scraping off dead outer layers of our skin. It only harms the tree if you get down to the phloem and cambium layer.

 

[solrey]

Jay, the lichen plastered on the bark is a sign of decline. It (the lichen) thrives on high levels of nitrogen pollution. The pine trees are abnormally thin. In a healthy stand - and not so long ago - you couldn't see through them to the other side. Where you have the close up of the pine trunk - I suggest you go outside and see how much effort is needed to break off a piece of that bark. It's splitting and loose. That's about as normal as if you tugged at your skin and it came off. In years past you would need a hammer to break off a piece of bark.

I already knew but went ahead and confirmed with my botanist gf that the entirety of that paragraph is, eh hum... incorrect.

We're avid gardeners, we live in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, with about the most thriving and diverse small scale agriculture in the country. We know foresters, master gardeners, growers and wildcrafters, we have a large veggie garden of our own including culinary and medicinal herbs. Heck, it's an edible landscape really with apples, pears, cherry, plum, almond, hazelnut, olive and fig trees, blueberries, marionberries, gooseberries, raspberries and blackberries, three varieties of grapes, we even harvest fresh tips in the spring from a couple of big spruce trees in the front yard. We have not experienced nor heard of any kind of decline of any sort in the region, other than from the effects of logging... and that includes a friend who does forest surveys. All of the old growth areas I've seen on the west coast look healthy, although sadly there is not much old growth left untouched.

 

[scombrid]

Trees now dying at an alarming rate?

I see pathogens getting passed around here and stress from pollution, drought, stress following storm events, etc... there. It varies from region to region and is hardly unprecedented or new. Accidental introduction of exotic pathogens/pests for which our native plants have historically been the most damaging. Chestnut blight damage exceeded anything we are seeing today. Chestnut forests disappeared. Millions of acres. They were largely replaced by oak-hickory.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/foresthealth/idotis/diseases/chestnut.html

I watched hemlock wooly adelgid and gypsy moth work their magic when I was living and working in Shenandoah National Park in the 1990s.

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/morgantown/4557/gmoth/

Lately I've been noticing something killing red bay trees here in Florida. I've seen it in numerous locations across central Florida over the last three years. My brother is an arborist up in Carolina. He was down for a visit last week and he noticed a couple of red bays browning over on the Weeki Wachee river. He said it was related to an exotic beetle working in tandem with an opportunistic fungus.

http://www.aces.edu/ucf/RedbayWiltStory.php

Looks to me like it came in through port at Savannah.

Oh, and here's youtube video that I ran across that was blaming tree damage on chemtrails and fukashima radiation when there was a fairly mundane explanation.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/865-Youtube-claims-that-tree-disease-is-from-Chemtrails

 

[Mick West]

I'm really puzzled over this, because anyone can go outside right now and see that the bark on the average pine tree is normal. I wonder if you mean just the outer layers of bark? Because it's totally normal for many species to be able to flake that off - it's dead tissue, just like scraping off dead outer layers of our skin. It only harms the tree if you get down to the phloem and cambium layer.

My neighbor's pine is doing fine, and I'm in Los Angeles, on top of an old oil field. I have palms in my yard, and they are shooting up.

It's all anecdotes though. Gail, if you want to claim all (or even most) trees are doing badly you can't just point at a few individual trees, you need to produce statistics.

 

[scombrid]

I'm really puzzled over this, because anyone can go outside right now and see that the bark on the average pine tree is normal. I wonder if you mean just the outer layers of bark? Because it's totally normal for many species to be able to flake that off - it's dead tissue, just like scraping off dead outer layers of our skin. It only harms the tree if you get down to the phloem and cambium layer.

I wonder if gail has encountered river birch or sycamore.

 

[Belfrey]

Lately I've been noticing something killing red bay trees here in Florida. I've seen it in numerous locations across central Florida over the last three years. My brother is an arborist up in Carolina. He was down for a visit last week and he noticed a couple of red bays browning over on the Weeki Wachee river. He said it was related to an exotic beetle working in tandem with an opportunistic fungus.

http://www.aces.edu/ucf/RedbayWiltStory.php

Looks to me like it came in through port at Savannah.

Exactly. Laurel wilt disease (caused by the redbay ambrosia beetle and its fungal associate) is one of the main things I'm working on. (There are some minor errors in that page BTW, and it's a little out of date - laurel wilt has since been found in Alabama.)

 

[F4Jock]

Exactly. Laurel wilt disease (caused by the redbay ambrosia beetle and its fungal associate) is one of the main things I'm working on. (There are some minor errors in that page BTW, and it's a little out of date - laurel wilt has since been found in Alabama.)

Do you remember Chestnut Blight?

 

[Belfrey]

Do you remember Chestnut Blight?

I'm too young to remember the disease as it was spreading through the country, wiping out American chestnut, mostly in the first half of the 20th century. But you can still find the pathogen out in the field. It's an effective saprophyte, so it's still around in dead oaks and such - and if you happen to find a wild chestnut root sprout of any significant size, very good chance that you'll be able to find cankers on it.

 

[Cairenn]

We are having problems with Oak wilt here in Texas. But it is not related to pollution

http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/article.aspx?id=1260

Oak Wilt

This disease is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of oaks across 73 counties in Central and West Texas. All oaks are susceptible. An infection center starts when a sap feedling beetle visits a red oak that has died of the disease and feeds on the fungal spore mats that oak wilt creates. The beetle, now covered with spores, flies off, somtimes long distances, seeking a new would on a tree for its next meal thus infecting a new tree. Once established in a tree, the disease can also spread to other trees by root connections or root graphts moving from one tree to the next. For detailed information on the spread and control of oak wilt, go to http://www.texasoakwilt.org and click on the informational links below.

....

Hypoxylon Canker

This canker disease occurs in trees when they are stressed by environmental extremes and other damaging agents. As the tree declines, Hypoxylon secondarily colonizes the wood just under the bark causing a distinctive necrotic lesion and spore mat. The signs of the fungus appear as small patches but will eventually merge to form large strips along the trunk and limbs of the tree.

Hypoxylon Canker

Root Rots

These rots are caused by decay fungi and water molds that kill woody trunk and root tissues and fine, feeder roots of trees. Some of the structural root rots include Armillaria spp., Ganoderma spp., and Heterobasidion annosum. Some of the feeder root rots include Phytophera spp. and Phymatotrichum omnivorum. Infection by root rots is often associated with previous wounding by animals, fire, lightning, and machines. However, they are very common in trees that are over-watered.

Bacterial Leaf Scorch

The bacterium Xylella fastidious causes a scorch to the leaf margins of many trees. Symptoms usually occur in early summar as plants come under heat stress. The bacteria lives in the water conducting xylem of the tree. It is transmitted by insects that feed on xylem fluid such as leafhoppers, sharpshooters and spittlebugs. It causes a stress-related decline resulting in stunting, brach die-back and death. The scorch on the leaves can be diagnosed by a chlorotic, yellow halo between the green and scorched tissue of the leaf, but it can can be mis-diagnosed as oak wilt in red oaks.

As you can see they point out pollution as a problem in one disease.

 

[Belfrey]

As you can see they point out pollution as a problem in one disease.

You mean Hypoxylon? Well, "environmental extremes and other damaging agents" - not just pollution specifically, but anything damaging or stressful (including drought, root damage, etc.). Basically, Hypoxylon canker is something that happens to a seriously stressed/dying tree. The fungus (now known as Biscogniauxia - darn those taxonomists) is nearly ubiquitous, but can't colonize the wood until the tree's water status goes below a certain point. Once it does, the infected tree (or portion thereof) is definitely a goner, although it likely was dying anyway.

 

[Cairenn]

You are quite correct on that. Also we are trying to grow a lot of trees in places that were once grasslands. The DFW area is on the border between the wetter parts of the state and the dry west. Not only that, but the soils change across the area. A tree that did well at your home in Arlington will not like the clay 2 miles to the east in Grand Prairie

 

[JuniorDavis]

Yes, acid rain. A Problem that was supposedly solved. Haha. However, it is true that acid rain is largely derived from SOx, and the scrubbers on coal plants have driven it down. SOx is the visible part of smog. Ozone is the part you can't see. An interesting part of the chemtrail conspiracy is the aluminum turning up. Aluminum is a natural part of soil composition, but it is bound up. Acid rain releases it. So, it's an interesting question how much that is impacting forests. The chemtrail people make much of the "white socks" on trees out west. Unfortunately, I'm not a scientist and I don't have access to a lab, but I a quite curious as to whether those "white socks" are aluminum on the bark. Or maybe it's just fungus??

Oxidized Aluminum is not found in soil.

This is why gardeners like myself have moved indoors. Not specifically because of the high amounts of aluminum being found in Air, Water, and Soil samples. But because of the other high levels of metals found too. Barium, Mercury and many others.

This is why I advocate to people to take Chlorella.

If you disregard the fact that there is oxidized aluminum in the air than why not do an air quality test yourself, Along with a hair analysis to find out how much aluminum is in your body. Along with other heavy metals.

​

Geo-Engineering (GE) is the artificial modification of Earth's climate systems to REDUCE THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING.
Industrial sized GE projects range from DECLASSIFIED experimentation like ocean iron fertilization, to HIGHLY CLASSIFIED dangerous experimentation like AEROSOL SPRAYING (chemical spraying).

Scientist David Keith, standing aside fellow geoengineers Ken Caldeira and Alan Robock, said in the geoengineering seminar on February 20 that they have decided to switch their stratospheric aerosol model from sulfur to aluminum.

Keith went on to say that 10-20 MEGATONS per year of aerosolized aluminum will be sprayed into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight to halt global warming. No journalist prior to Murphy (and even now) has reported on the bait and switch by geoengineers.

Dane Wigington, a climate researcher and solar expert, cornered Keith in the question and answers that followed.
Wigington: "Did you do a study on human respiration? 10 megatons of aluminum dumped into the atmosphere will have no human health impacts?"

Keith: "Let me be more careful here… to separate out the toxicological crux. The aluminum we have only begun to research and published nothing. Mostly worked on sulfur and the relevant comparison is that just as Robock said...(referring to sulfur particle number studies mentioned by Alan Robock).


"The whole thing he just got through was particle numbers, the impact of particle numbers…but we haven't done anything on aluminum. So if we add onto the tropo aerosols, could we have any impact? That was totally irrelevant. That was just on particle numbers... But we haven't done anything serious on aluminum and so there could be something terrible that we will find tomorrow that we haven't looked at."

They already admitted to wanting to dump 10-30 megatons of Oxidized aluminum into the atmosphere to control weather.

There's no conspiracy with this.

Skip to 1 hour into the video when they go to an organic farm in Hawaii where they are basically ripping the bark off the trees and tested the soil and individuals that live there for heavy metals which aluminum specifically came up positive for a high amount.

Look at all the evidence presented to you. Before you say "It's normal aluminum is found in the soil" how about you test the soil, show us the tests like they did and tell us how much in your sample is "Normal"

Thing is people will be so quick to disprove something that is so easily presented to them.

The aluminum and other heavy metals are causing trees to die.

Watch the video and then tell me what is real and what is not.

Not to mention the environmental samples carnicom has developed in dishes showing fungus and molds being grown.

There has also been a huge PH change going on. This is why outdoor growing is so hard now.

 

[Mick West]

JD, Keith was simply discussing one of variosu proposals for POSSIBLE geoengineering - which covers all kinds of stuff, including putting hug mirrors in space. Discussing something does nto mean it has been done.

And all the chemical tests have been debunked, either here or on Contrail Science. For example, see:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/137-Debunked-Shasta-Snow-and-Water-Aluminum-Tests

Perhaps though you have a particular test result in mind?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Oxidized Aluminum is not found in soil.

Junior, I have a lot to say to you and I hope we can have a conversation about this. I'd like to address your claims starting with those regarding aluminum. You say that oxidized aluminum, also known as alumina, is not found in soil. Can you tell us what sort of aluminum compound actually is found in soil? I'm sure that you learned all this from the video you cite, it must be in there somewhere. Let me know what was said in that move to have you make that comment in your posting.
Thanks,
Jay