People keep saying we need to wait for more studies on the impact of #glyphosate on interior forests. But the results are in and have been for decades.
These two blocks are right next to each other KM 16.5 on the Grizzly FSR due south of Eulatazela Lake.
1/n
These two blocks are right next to each other KM 16.5 on the Grizzly FSR due south of Eulatazela Lake.
1/n
The 1972 block (not 1974) is full of aspen patches, spruce, pine, subalpine fir, cottonwood and birch. It is fire-resistant, is full of biodiversity, evidence of moose, many birds, rich herb layer on forest floor. It is sequestering more carbon and has higher albedo
2/n
2/n
1989 block is primarily pine with some small strips of aspen/cottonwood along the roads that are not really doing well. Vast majority of block is a monoculture of one species.
It is a fire-trap, has next to no wildlife, very poor understory diversity.
3/n
It is a fire-trap, has next to no wildlife, very poor understory diversity.
3/n
So for people to say glyphosate spraying forests has no long-term ecosystem impacts, they are lying. Straight up. Glyphosate has a massive and long-term impact on deciduous plant communities. That's why government and industry fight so hard to keep it.
4/n
4/n
You won't find a candid assessment like this today, but back in 1978 you can almost hear how giddy these guys are when they point out glyphosate ranks 9 on the scale of 9 in effectiveness in killing aspen long-term
This is research by @cif_ifc
5/n
pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdf/10.555…
This is research by @cif_ifc
5/n
pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdf/10.555…
They want to keep #glyphosate in the "toolbox" because it works really well to achieve their bone-headed, ecocidal objective of making forests more flammable, hotter, drier, and less capable of sequestering carbon while increasing risk of disease.
The evidence here.
6/6
The evidence here.
6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
