[MUD-Dev] Java, applets, forests and ecologies.

[Derrick Jones]

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Ling wrote:
> Okay, today's stupid question:  Forests!  How do they start?  I mean,
> seriously!  I've always lived in rurban areas, and the forests near me
> seem to have been pruned a bit.  Do forests really start off with a wall
> of trees?  Does nature define a sharp boundary in Her mysterious ways?

Forests start off (cronologically) with a grassy field.  Then shrubs and
larger plants move in once the grass makes the soil fertile enough.  As
they, in turn, deepen the fertile soil, small trees take root, then the
larger trees.  Eventually the forest (barring man's encroachment or
natural disasters) will cover everywhere the soil can support it.

The abruptness of the forest boundry depends mainly on the undisturbed age
of the forest.  It also depends on the geography of the area.  When an old
forest meets a fresh water source (river, lake), the forest will be dense
right up to the edge.  When it meets a salt-water source, the forest will
thin as the soil and groundwater become less rich.  When it approaches a
tree-line(an altitude above which its too cold for the tree to survive),
the trees will form a neat line at that altitude, but the forest won't be
as dense because there won't be any undergrowth.  Water and Cold are
probably the only things that can stop a forests growth.

I also meantioned disasters.  Frequent tornadoes and lightning strikes
(starting forest fires) pretty much wiped out the forests which once
covered the Great Plains in the US.  Forests that are devistated as such
begin their growth from start if enough area is destroyed to prevent
re-seeding.  The Plains were in the tall grasses phase when 'discovered',
and mans (as well as nature's) constant intervention kept them from ever
growing back.  Forests bordering on destroyed areas have a gradual edge
after a while, as the shrubs and smaller trees re-seed more quickly, and
they will slowly spread out over the area.

Hope that helps...I just earned my 'naturalist' merit badge! <snicker>

> Also, today, I read a really interesting article in the NewScientist about
> ecologies and how, sometimes, introducing a creature with better
> attributes to a new environment won't necessarily mean the creature will
> thrive.  It's all to do with webs, heavy independencies between species
> and how it parallels with the business world.  I haven't drawn any
> conclusions from it but it seemed interesting at the time and almost
> applicable to muds in some ways...
> 
> This is it, in my own words:  If your mud ecology/food chain/supply chain
> can be corrupted by adding a few entities a few factors more 'powerful'
> than the existing ones, then there's something wrong. (that's not what the
> article says, that's me being me)

Probably the most important factor in a new species thriving is luck.  If
you introduce two snakes into an environment where they _should_ do well,
if one of the snakes eats an animal that's toxic to them, then the species
won't thrive too long.  Also, most ecologies are circular in nature.
There's no one 'on top' of the food chain; everyone has a predator.  One
of the most ferocious beasts on Earth is a pack of pirahna.  Yet there is
a crocodile that eats them.  That crocodile is vunerable(when young) to
seagulls, and parasites at adulthood.  Man is as close as they come to an
end-of-chain creature, yet parasites, bacteria, and microbes continually
feed on us.  We usually srvive being dined on in this manner, and man is
generally in charge whereever he goes.  This is why people destroy
ecologies so much...we take and then give nothing back in return.

Gunther