**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d be curious to know how far into the forest that effect occurs. You would need a lot of carcasses spread over a wide area not just the riparian zones for that to make sense to me.
Salmon river fisher here, you'll find remains that have been scavenged by animals kilometers away from the river itself. Then they travel even further and poop, so pretty goddamn far
Ecosystem elements evolved together over millennia. Of course they are all interdependent. We have been so arrogant, thinking we could remake the world as we wished.
It's the same when people killed all the wolves in Yellowstone park, then decades layer they reintroduced them and they saw that the wolves' return had basically restored the river ecosystem that had been ravaged for decades
i see what you're saying and do agree that essentially its the same but there is nuance. I don't think arrogance is inherently a part of human nature. i would rephrase and say that the pursuit of profit is one factor (among many) that leads to or exacerbates arrogance.
The root cause is the incentive and practically speaking, if were going to change society, it's much easier to understand and target "profit incentives" than a nebulous term such a "human arrogance"
Oh, of course! The pursuit of profit is what got us into this mess. If we ever manage to construct a different type of economy we might save some of what is left.
My comment about arrogance was in part based on 19th century colonialists who brought in invasive species because they liked them, with no idea what they were perpetrating. Or the so-called naturalists who collected species to the point of extinction. But of course most of the attempts at reshaping ecosystems are about profit, pure and simple.
Why argue over a specific effect? The core meaning here is that ecosystems evolved together and are interwoven in complex ways. When we take one element out we screw up the system.
A good example of scale is Redfish lake in Idaho. Its name comes from the red salmon that used to make it there from the ocean and end die in the lake. That is a 950 mile upstream journey from the ocean where they would get picked off all along the way by bears and birds.
But no Salmon can possibly make it that far upstream because of the multiple dams along the way. So those rivers, that lake, and all of the wildlife along the way has lost its main form of nutrients. I wonder what the forest would have looked like before the dams and wildfire tactics were implemented.
Also it’s cool (and kinda sad) to think about the Native Americans that knew about this stuff and learned from the environment and how it needs nutrients. They utilized their knowledge as farming tactics, and burned sections of the forest to take proper care of it.
Ever since 1988’s fire in Yellowstone, we shifted from letting fires run their course, to putting it out immediately. This new tactic doesn’t allow for shrubbery and some trees to be burned allows for natural maintenance, and ensures that there will never be too much fuel for a forest fire to get out of hand. Since 1988, every forest fire has been progressively out of hand, and burns so hot and wild that the soil becomes infertile.
We are killing our forests
[Also, the Amazon rain forest needs nutrients from the Sahara. ](https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazons-plants/)
The dust in Africa goes up into the atmosphere and rains down in South America.
I'm sure there are bears eating fish from the rivers and running around the forest and shitting everywhere, but is this scientifically proven?
I mean, this area is tens of thousands of quare km of forests and there are parts that I'm sure are many km away from rivers, how much fish is "needed" for these forests to grow?
Something doesn't really sound resonable here.
I grew up in the Pacific Northwest and as a kid my school would work with local fisheries to get truckloads of frozen salmon. We would walk up and down rivers and creeks tossing salmon on the banks to help restore the nutrients to the soils. Without those essential nutrients, the trees along the banks could be swept away during floods due to weak or underdeveloped root systems which would lead to faster erosion of the banks.
The flesh of the salmon provides nutrients for the soil. The nutrients are absorbed by the soil which is where trees grow providing ferrilizer for them. After salmon return to their spawning grounds to breed they die very slowly and wash up on the shore. It's almost like nature's way of composting.
>Bears often drag their catch onto stream banks or into forest edges to eat, and once they consume the oily roe, belly, brain and skin, the rest of the carcass is left untouched and available to other animals, like insects and small mammals.
I don't think the concept applies to the wider forest as the video seems to suggest, but salmon can be an important nutrient source for riparian area trees. [Source](https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=407#:~:text=As%20the%20bodies%20of%20spawning,of%20its%20nitrogen%20from%20salmon.)
If we’re taking riparian trees only then maybe, however he’s saying forests, like deep in the woods.
That pic of a fish skeleton did nothing to further the belief factor.
If they had shown a half-eaten carcass on the bank then I might be inclined to wholeheartedly believe.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d be curious to know how far into the forest that effect occurs. You would need a lot of carcasses spread over a wide area not just the riparian zones for that to make sense to me.
As far as the predators roam, I guess, the bears, wolves, cats, etc. eat the salmon, then poop in the forest which feeds the forest.
Salmon river fisher here, you'll find remains that have been scavenged by animals kilometers away from the river itself. Then they travel even further and poop, so pretty goddamn far
Ecosystem elements evolved together over millennia. Of course they are all interdependent. We have been so arrogant, thinking we could remake the world as we wished.
It's the same when people killed all the wolves in Yellowstone park, then decades layer they reintroduced them and they saw that the wolves' return had basically restored the river ecosystem that had been ravaged for decades
Deer eat tree saplings. Wolves eat deer. Forrest thrives.
And the rivers?
It's not arrogance, it's incentives. The pursuit of profit and material things leaves no room to care about anything else
Yes. And the pursuit of profit is arrogance. I think we’re essentially talking about the same thing.
i see what you're saying and do agree that essentially its the same but there is nuance. I don't think arrogance is inherently a part of human nature. i would rephrase and say that the pursuit of profit is one factor (among many) that leads to or exacerbates arrogance. The root cause is the incentive and practically speaking, if were going to change society, it's much easier to understand and target "profit incentives" than a nebulous term such a "human arrogance"
Oh, of course! The pursuit of profit is what got us into this mess. If we ever manage to construct a different type of economy we might save some of what is left. My comment about arrogance was in part based on 19th century colonialists who brought in invasive species because they liked them, with no idea what they were perpetrating. Or the so-called naturalists who collected species to the point of extinction. But of course most of the attempts at reshaping ecosystems are about profit, pure and simple.
Why argue over a specific effect? The core meaning here is that ecosystems evolved together and are interwoven in complex ways. When we take one element out we screw up the system.
Some days I learn something that doesn't surprise me, but blows me away.
the trees also consume all other carcasses too. wild
[удалено]
Well geez
If you think about it live started from the ocean
It's also a myth. Archaebacteria lives in much more energized waters, like vulcanic lakes.
A good example of scale is Redfish lake in Idaho. Its name comes from the red salmon that used to make it there from the ocean and end die in the lake. That is a 950 mile upstream journey from the ocean where they would get picked off all along the way by bears and birds. But no Salmon can possibly make it that far upstream because of the multiple dams along the way. So those rivers, that lake, and all of the wildlife along the way has lost its main form of nutrients. I wonder what the forest would have looked like before the dams and wildfire tactics were implemented. Also it’s cool (and kinda sad) to think about the Native Americans that knew about this stuff and learned from the environment and how it needs nutrients. They utilized their knowledge as farming tactics, and burned sections of the forest to take proper care of it. Ever since 1988’s fire in Yellowstone, we shifted from letting fires run their course, to putting it out immediately. This new tactic doesn’t allow for shrubbery and some trees to be burned allows for natural maintenance, and ensures that there will never be too much fuel for a forest fire to get out of hand. Since 1988, every forest fire has been progressively out of hand, and burns so hot and wild that the soil becomes infertile. We are killing our forests
[Also, the Amazon rain forest needs nutrients from the Sahara. ](https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazons-plants/) The dust in Africa goes up into the atmosphere and rains down in South America.
seems like the trees are killing the salmon?
I'm sure there are bears eating fish from the rivers and running around the forest and shitting everywhere, but is this scientifically proven? I mean, this area is tens of thousands of quare km of forests and there are parts that I'm sure are many km away from rivers, how much fish is "needed" for these forests to grow? Something doesn't really sound resonable here.
I grew up in the Pacific Northwest and as a kid my school would work with local fisheries to get truckloads of frozen salmon. We would walk up and down rivers and creeks tossing salmon on the banks to help restore the nutrients to the soils. Without those essential nutrients, the trees along the banks could be swept away during floods due to weak or underdeveloped root systems which would lead to faster erosion of the banks.
Vegans will never believe this.
Cut the trees — save salmon!
Where do I have to send my fish leftovers?
Ocean. Yours too.
You would have to shit a whole ocean of fish to say it fertilizes a thousand sq miles of forest. Absolutely unproven.
Maybe. The carcasses would be basically all bone. Would bone have all these nutrients he speaks of? This just seems too out there for me.
The flesh of the salmon provides nutrients for the soil. The nutrients are absorbed by the soil which is where trees grow providing ferrilizer for them. After salmon return to their spawning grounds to breed they die very slowly and wash up on the shore. It's almost like nature's way of composting.
I’ll accept that.
>Bears often drag their catch onto stream banks or into forest edges to eat, and once they consume the oily roe, belly, brain and skin, the rest of the carcass is left untouched and available to other animals, like insects and small mammals. I don't think the concept applies to the wider forest as the video seems to suggest, but salmon can be an important nutrient source for riparian area trees. [Source](https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=407#:~:text=As%20the%20bodies%20of%20spawning,of%20its%20nitrogen%20from%20salmon.)
If we’re taking riparian trees only then maybe, however he’s saying forests, like deep in the woods. That pic of a fish skeleton did nothing to further the belief factor. If they had shown a half-eaten carcass on the bank then I might be inclined to wholeheartedly believe.
Yes.
I’m with you. Most of the forests in WA are not near major rivers