Consequences of killing all plants in a large'sh area, and preventing new ones from growing?
Peter Knutsen
area of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently
growing plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what
will the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale,
for the ecology and the landscape?
The spell doesn't affect fungi (at least I don't think so), and it
certainly doesn't affect animals directly, although obviously it is
impossible for most animals to live in such an area, but how dead would
such an area actually be?
Can fungi live without plants? I imagine there's matter to decompose
(dead plants, and animals starved to death) for some months or years
after the spell is cast the first time, but that matter will eventually
have been dealt with completely. What then?
Also, what about the soil? Will it remain dirt-like, or turn into sand,
after some decades, or some centuries?
Weather is not affected by the spell (it can cover fungi too, or not,
depending on my preference, but right now I'm not sure what difference
it would make), nor water sources such as wells, springs, streams or rivers.
The spell is used to surround a small coastal nation (actually a
magocracy in Bretagne) with a "barren belt" 5 to 8 km wide, probably
mostly as a display of power directed at neighbouring nations, as well
as at the non-mage subjects living within it. At least I can't see the
belt having any real military value, when it is so narrow, relative to
how far a human can travel on foot, in half a day while carrying weapons
and plenty of supplies.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Andrew Plotkin
> Accepting the fact that there's a magic spell that can affect a large
> area of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently
> growing plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
> repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what
> will the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale,
> for the ecology and the landscape?
>
> The spell doesn't affect fungi (at least I don't think so), and it
> certainly doesn't affect animals directly, although obviously it is
> impossible for most animals to live in such an area, but how dead would
> such an area actually be?
Intestinal flora? Nothing says "no trespassing" like an instant attack
of the dire-rear...
What about the algae that are symbiotic with lichen? Lichen are
photosynthetic, and I'm sure they will take over a region if plants
are excluded.
If you rule that out, then I'm thinking "dust bowl" after a few years.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Crown-Horned Snorkack
> Accepting the fact that there's a magic spell that can affect a large
> area of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently
> growing plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
> repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what
> will the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale,
> for the ecology and the landscape?
>
> The spell doesn't affect fungi (at least I don't think so), and it
> certainly doesn't affect animals directly, although obviously it is
> impossible for most animals to live in such an area, but how dead would
> such an area actually be?
>
> Can fungi live without plants? I imagine there's matter to decompose
> (dead plants, and animals starved to death) for some months or years
> after the spell is cast the first time, but that matter will eventually
> have been dealt with completely. What then?
>
seeds, fallen leaves etc. Some decomposers use it.
> Also, what about the soil? Will it remain dirt-like, or turn into sand,
> after some decades, or some centuries?
>
Humus decomposes. Mineral silt and clay remains. However, since humus
sticks to clay, after decomposition of this silt and clay would more
easily wash (and silt also blow) away. Stones and gravel would remain,
sand would cover limited distances.
> Weather is not affected by the spell (it can cover fungi too, or not,
> depending on my preference, but right now I'm not sure what difference
> it would make), nor water sources such as wells, springs, streams or rivers.
>
In the absence of plants, there would tend to be more runoff in total.
No evapotranspiration, less evaporation in total. Water would rapidly
tend to run off after rain, and wash away clay, sand etc. Streams and
rivers would tend to be filled with mud and sand, broad but shallow in
flood, and split into shallow trickles in a wide sandy bed in drought.
Note that this would also apply to rivers which flow from barrens to
neighbouring unaccursed areas. Although if the curse does not adhere
to sediments like a poison, but rather to underlying uneroded bedrock,
then those lower courses would allow plants to cover the sediments,
which would tend to be consolidated by floodplain plants there and
confine the streams to narrower beds. But still wider and shallower
than neighbouring unaffected ricers. You can also expect lakes to form
ponded by the filled valleys.
> The spell is used to surround a small coastal nation (actually a
> magocracy in Bretagne) with a "barren belt" 5 to 8 km wide, probably
> mostly as a display of power directed at neighbouring nations, as well
> as at the non-mage subjects living within it. At least I can't see the
> belt having any real military value, when it is so narrow, relative to
> how far a human can travel on foot, in half a day while carrying weapons
> and plenty of supplies.
>
It does have a real military value. 5 to 8 km wide barren belt devoid
of any trees, bushes or hedges could be watched from adjoining
hilltops or towers, to catch sight of and shoot any such hostile
pedestrians.
However, hills and ridges inside the belt would still hamper views. As
would river valleys. Gullies newly eroded due to the barrenness might
provide badlands landscape for shelter, and barren sand can even in
fairly moist climate form blown dunes also taller than man.
Waddell
Carthage!" When the Romans finally sacked Carthage they dismantled
the city and sowed salt in the ground to prevent a city from ever
arising on the spot to contest them in the future. This sounds a lot
like your magical spell.
Some of the consequences I see would include the state's inability to
expand because of what they did as well as immediate and future
retaliation from the people who owned it when the devastation was laid
down.
Ecologically, you'd also injure the wildlife in the barren zone as
well as in the home country as wildlife, smarter than humans, has no
concept of a political boundary. You might also create a dustbowl
effect as hit Oklahoma and the mid-west during the Depression. That
would have pronounced impact as it would likely blow over into the
state causing the mess. This would cover their area with dust and
possibly choke streams, ruin crops, etc.
Depending on the strength of the magic the wild life and plant life
would start to recolonize the area. The devastation from Mt. St.
Helens and Agent Orange was mitigated by plants re-emerging in the
area. Interesting plot twist! The magician who caused it would have
to keep re-doing it. Conjures up images of a magical lawn mowing
service...
On Nov 23, 11:18 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai>
wrote:
Suzanne Blom
"Peter Knutsen" <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:4b0a9e51$0$278$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> Accepting the fact that there's a magic spell that can affect a large area
> of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently growing
> plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
> repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what will
> the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale, for the
> ecology and the landscape?
>
> The spell doesn't affect fungi (at least I don't think so), and it
> certainly doesn't affect animals directly, although obviously it is
> impossible for most animals to live in such an area, but how dead would
> such an area actually be?
>
> Can fungi live without plants? I imagine there's matter to decompose (dead
> plants, and animals starved to death) for some months or years after the
> spell is cast the first time, but that matter will eventually have been
> dealt with completely. What then?
>
Okay, what do you mean by plants? The scientist means tracheophytes, but
the magicians may simply attack those organisms that use chlorophyll, for
instance. That would allow bacteria and the like that use chemicals to
survive to have a limited existance in the area.
> Also, what about the soil? Will it remain dirt-like, or turn into sand,
> after some decades, or some centuries?
>
> Weather is not affected by the spell (it can cover fungi too, or not,
> depending on my preference, but right now I'm not sure what difference it
> would make), nor water sources such as wells, springs, streams or rivers.
>
> The spell is used to surround a small coastal nation (actually a magocracy
> in Bretagne) with a "barren belt" 5 to 8 km wide, probably mostly as a
> display of power directed at neighbouring nations, as well as at the
> non-mage subjects living within it. At least I can't see the belt having
> any real military value, when it is so narrow, relative to how far a human
> can travel on foot, in half a day while carrying weapons and plenty of
> supplies.
>
In addition to what the others have said, flash floods from the
sand/gravel/rock with no holding capacity into neighboring lands. If the
small coastal nation is lower than its border, it's going to get flooded a
lot; if neighboring countries are, they're going to be really pissed. Yeah,
lots of dust storms driven by the wind.
In general, after a while the whole of the environment in the general is
going to be a lot more unpleasant. (Something like paving over a large area
to maintain car symbionts including the resulting pollution.)
Andrew Plotkin
>
> In addition to what the others have said, flash floods from the
> sand/gravel/rock with no holding capacity into neighboring lands. If the
> small coastal nation is lower than its border, it's going to get flooded a
> lot; if neighboring countries are, they're going to be really pissed. Yeah,
> lots of dust storms driven by the wind.
Although it occurs me to that the dust (and silt) is going to be full
of organics and nitrates -- very fertile stuff, once it gets out of
the spell zone. Not like the US Dust Bowl.
And it'll smell like shit gone off, I just bet.
James Nicoll
Waddell <allen....@gmail.com> wrote:
>To take a phrase from Robert Heinlein, "Ask the city fathers of
>Carthage!" When the Romans finally sacked Carthage they dismantled
>the city and sowed salt in the ground to prevent a city from ever
>arising on the spot to contest them in the future. This sounds a lot
>like your magical spell.
>
>Some of the consequences I see would include the state's inability to
>expand because of what they did as well as immediate and future
>retaliation from the people who owned it when the devastation was laid
>down.
"As for Carthage, we need to take that story with a pinch of salt too.
When Scipio sacked Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War in 146 BC,
it's not out of the question that he salted the ground. Salt was readily
available at salt works and brine springs all over Italy, and the Romans
had conquered Carthaginian salt works in north Africa. However, no ancient
account says anything about salting the ground - that twist may have
originated with the 19th-century German historian Ferdinand Gregorovius,
who mentions it in his History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages.
Gregorovius's contemporary Theodor Mommsen says the Roman senate ordered
the site of Carthage to be plowed under, but even that's debatable.
Whatever fearsome measures may have been adopted, they didn't take;
the site was reinhabited within a century and developed into a thriving
Roman city."
Also
A: Top posting
Q: What makes baby Jesus cry?
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
alie...@gmail.com
> "Peter Knutsen" <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:4b0a9e51$0$278$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...> Accepting the fact that there's a magic spell that can affect a large area
> > of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently growing
> > plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
> > repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what will
> > the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale, for the
> > ecology and the landscape?
(snip)
> Okay, what do you mean by plants? The scientist means tracheophytes, but
> the magicians may simply attack those organisms that use chlorophyll, for
> instance. That would allow bacteria and the like that use chemicals to
> survive to have a limited existance in the area.
A limited existence? First, they'd go nuts feeding on all the
freshly-dead plants (as long as the spell just "removes the life" from
the plants rather than burns them or something). Then, they'd feed on
each other...
Not just bacteria, also protists like slime molds, some of which
grow to the size of a large pizza according to:
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/slime1.htm
If the magician is especially clever and does something intricate
biochemically, the spell may not only kill plants but also favor large
slime molds. I mean, man-eating size. Wouldn't that be fun?
Mark L. Fergerson
care...@gmail.com
Does it kill all plant cells entering the "plant death zone"? If so,
then it will be impossible to import or export viable plants in any
form. Fresh vegetables also cannot be imported or exported as they
would immediately spoil and rot upon entering the zone.
Crown-Horned Snorkack
> To take a phrase from Robert Heinlein, "Ask the city fathers of
> Carthage!" When the Romans finally sacked Carthage they dismantled
> the city and sowed salt in the ground to prevent a city from ever
> arising on the spot to contest them in the future. This sounds a lot
> like your magical spell.
>
invention), this is ineffective. Salt washes out in a few years, and
it does nothing against a city arising, because a city is buildings
not plants. What kept Carthage empty was Romans enforcing the ban on
resettlement and abiding by it themselves, which they did for a
century.
> Some of the consequences I see would include the state's inability to
> expand because of what they did as well as immediate and future
> retaliation from the people who owned it when the devastation was laid
> down.
>
Buffer zones cost. Korean demilitarized zone is 4 km wide. The zone is
closed for civilian visits and economic use except for a pair of small
villages. Soldiers patrol it and maintain paths, but the bulk of the
zone is allowed to turn into a forest.
If expansion were desirable, 5...8 km of empty field is easily crossed
by foot or vehicles - even beasts of draught or burden can cross it
without needing to forage - so the state can seize the lands to the
outside of the barren belt with a minor inconvenience.
> Ecologically, you'd also injure the wildlife in the barren zone as
> well as in the home country as wildlife, smarter than humans, has no
> concept of a political boundary. You might also create a dustbowl
> effect as hit Oklahoma and the mid-west during the Depression. That
> would have pronounced impact as it would likely blow over into the
> state causing the mess. This would cover their area with dust and
> possibly choke streams, ruin crops, etc.
Crops would do relatively well. Modest amounts of windblown dust would
settle through crops and be more like fertilizer.
Choking streams I did mention - it would be more a problem with
streams flowing out of barren belt.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<erky...@eblong.com> writes
>Here, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> Accepting the fact that there's a magic spell that can affect a large
>> area of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently
>> growing plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
>> repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what
>> will the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale,
>> for the ecology and the landscape?
>>
>> The spell doesn't affect fungi (at least I don't think so), and it
>> certainly doesn't affect animals directly, although obviously it is
>> impossible for most animals to live in such an area, but how dead would
>> such an area actually be?
>
>Intestinal flora? Nothing says "no trespassing" like an instant attack
>of the dire-rear...
It depends on the mode of operation of the spell, but if it doesn't
effect animals and fungi, then it presumably doesn't effect bacteria
either, so your intestinal flora should be OK.
>
>What about the algae that are symbiotic with lichen? Lichen are
>photosynthetic, and I'm sure they will take over a region if plants
>are excluded.
Some lichen symbionts are cyanobacteria. They're not plants. Others are
green algae. Whether they are plants is a question of terminology. So,
unless the spell kills chlorophyll using organisms, rather than plants,
the area should, climate and pollution permitting, develop a cover of
soft lichens.
>
>If you rule that out, then I'm thinking "dust bowl" after a few years.
>
>--Z
>
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Peter Knutsen
> Intestinal flora? Nothing says "no trespassing" like an instant attack
> of the dire-rear...
Bacteria aren't plants.
> What about the algae that are symbiotic with lichen? Lichen are
> photosynthetic, and I'm sure they will take over a region if plants
> are excluded.
Good point!
I don't want the area covered with lichen, so I'll have to rule that
algae-using lichen counts as plants.
Perhaps the spell simply blocks photosynthesis from happening, or
reduces the efficiency by 99%?
That way, if the spell is cast on an area of ocean, algae can still
drift across it and survive, although they'll be in bad shape, and if
they stop drifting, they're in trouble.
> If you rule that out, then I'm thinking "dust bowl" after a few years.
Sounds like I should read up on this "dust bowl" thing. All I know is
that it was something that happened in the USA in the 1920's or 30's,
and I'm guessing it was due to bad agricultural practices, perhaps
synergizing with a minor climate change.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Some lichen symbionts are cyanobacteria. They're not plants. Others are
> green algae. Whether they are plants is a question of terminology. So,
> unless the spell kills chlorophyll using organisms, rather than plants,
> the area should, climate and pollution permitting, develop a cover of
> soft lichens.
I don't think the spell so much kills, as it strangles. It's not an
instant-plant-death effect, but more something that happens over days or
maybe even weeks.
Do cyanobacteria do photosynthesis? I'm thinking the spell could block,
or almost completely nerf, photosynthesis, but if that means the area
will eventually be covered with lichen, I'll have to change the
functioning, because I want the "belt" to be rather intimidating
(relative to the surrounding fertile lands).
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> On 23 nov, 16:38, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>Can fungi live without plants? I imagine there's matter to decompose
>>(dead plants, and animals starved to death) for some months or years
>>after the spell is cast the first time, but that matter will eventually
>>have been dealt with completely. What then?
>
> A small amount of plant matter will keep blowing into the area -
> seeds, fallen leaves etc. Some decomposers use it.
Such as fungi? Or insects?
>>Also, what about the soil? Will it remain dirt-like, or turn into sand,
>>after some decades, or some centuries?
>
> Humus decomposes. Mineral silt and clay remains. However, since humus
> sticks to clay, after decomposition of this silt and clay would more
> easily wash (and silt also blow) away. Stones and gravel would remain,
> sand would cover limited distances.
So a sort of desert?
>>Weather is not affected by the spell (it can cover fungi too, or not,
>>depending on my preference, but right now I'm not sure what difference
>>it would make), nor water sources such as wells, springs, streams or rivers.
>
> In the absence of plants, there would tend to be more runoff in total.
> No evapotranspiration, less evaporation in total. Water would rapidly
> tend to run off after rain, and wash away clay, sand etc. Streams and
> rivers would tend to be filled with mud and sand, broad but shallow in
> flood, and split into shallow trickles in a wide sandy bed in drought.
Okay, sounds like I'll have to try uing Google Earth and Google Maps to
see what the area (Bretagne) is actually like, with regards to rivers.
> Note that this would also apply to rivers which flow from barrens to
> neighbouring unaccursed areas. Although if the curse does not adhere
> to sediments like a poison, but rather to underlying uneroded bedrock,
It is essetially a "bedrock" effect. "Stationary relative to the
underlying continental plates" is probably a good definition.
> then those lower courses would allow plants to cover the sediments,
> which would tend to be consolidated by floodplain plants there and
> confine the streams to narrower beds. But still wider and shallower
> than neighbouring unaffected ricers. You can also expect lakes to form
> ponded by the filled valleys.
And what would the silt in the rivers and streams be like? Sand, or
somehat fertile soil? Rich in the kinds of minerals that plants like?
>>The spell is used to surround a small coastal nation (actually a
>>magocracy in Bretagne) with a "barren belt" 5 to 8 km wide, probably
>>mostly as a display of power directed at neighbouring nations, as well
>>as at the non-mage subjects living within it. At least I can't see the
>>belt having any real military value, when it is so narrow, relative to
>>how far a human can travel on foot, in half a day while carrying weapons
>>and plenty of supplies.
>
> It does have a real military value. 5 to 8 km wide barren belt devoid
> of any trees, bushes or hedges could be watched from adjoining
> hilltops or towers, to catch sight of and shoot any such hostile
> pedestrians.
>
> However, hills and ridges inside the belt would still hamper views. As
Well, over centuries, the magocrats can do some fairly serious landscape
engineering, if there are hills or ridges that concerns them.
However, their paranoia is more about small groups of men or women with
staves, i.e. rival spellcasters or other magic users from outside,
rather than large armies. Large armies are easy to deal with. Not that
any army would dare attack Bretagne. The area has a stark reputation,
mainly because of the belt. It's a propaganda tool, more than anything
else, I think.
> would river valleys. Gullies newly eroded due to the barrenness might
> provide badlands landscape for shelter, and barren sand can even in
> fairly moist climate form blown dunes also taller than man.
Dunes are more of a problem, since even if "spelled down" they would
tend to reform, whereas if spells are used to tear down an
earth/rock-formation, it'll stay torn down.
Traditional invasions don't concern the magocrats much, though. It is
possible they actually have been invaded once or twice, in the past,
without noticing it, with the invaders leaving again without having
gotten any of what they wanted, except a few slaves from the subject
population.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> To take a phrase from Robert Heinlein, "Ask the city fathers of
> Carthage!" When the Romans finally sacked Carthage they dismantled
> the city and sowed salt in the ground to prevent a city from ever
> arising on the spot to contest them in the future. This sounds a lot
> like your magical spell.
Well yes, except it's more like a belt of some thousand square
kilometers (I haven't checked the scale yet, but I figure the land
border of Bretagne is several hundred km), rather than a square'ish area.
Also, I've often wondered about the salt thing, because salt was fairly
expensive at that time, whether mined as rock salt (labour intensive),
or taken from sea water (requires fuel).
> Some of the consequences I see would include the state's inability to
> expand because of what they did as well as immediate and future
> retaliation from the people who owned it when the devastation was laid
> down.
Well, the state consists of a few thousand magocrats, and on the order
of a hundred thousand subjects, essentially slaves. I don't yet know how
the magocrats do population control, but I doubt they do it in a nice way.
They do need a subject population, though, since they have a taboo
agains using undead labour, but their main principle seems to be to
utilize fear to stay in power.
> Ecologically, you'd also injure the wildlife in the barren zone as
> well as in the home country as wildlife, smarter than humans, has no
> concept of a political boundary. You might also create a dustbowl
I'd have thought that land-based wild life would simply not cross the
barren belt, because of its width.
Some particularly smart species, like wolves, might learn that it is
crossable, I think, and so live as habitual border-crossers, but I think
most species would be quite intimidated by an at least 5 km wide belt of
barren land.
Am I incorrect in this?
(Birds and other flying vertebrates would cross it routinely, of course,
but I don't know if insects ever fly such long distances, except for
some migrating butterflies...)
> effect as hit Oklahoma and the mid-west during the Depression. That
> would have pronounced impact as it would likely blow over into the
> state causing the mess. This would cover their area with dust and
> possibly choke streams, ruin crops, etc.
That wouldn't be too good. Weather can be controlled, but that's
expensive, and I think the magocrats would prefer a system that can
function without weather control, in case their powers are needed for
other activities (other emergencies).
However, as others have pointed out, the dust from the barren belt would
be rather more fertile than the dust from the Dustbowl phenomenon, so
would it be a real problem, after all?
> Depending on the strength of the magic the wild life and plant life
> would start to recolonize the area. The devastation from Mt. St.
Well, the two spells used last for respectively half a year and two
years (there are lesser spells too, but they cover rather small areas)
so they have to be re-cast every now and then, which is probably a
significant effort for the magocrats.
> Helens and Agent Orange was mitigated by plants re-emerging in the
The Agent Orange thing probably was one inspiration for the belt
(another was a much wider belt surrounding the city of Ar, in John
Norman's infamous "Gor" setting), except the military angle is fairly
unimportant.
> area. Interesting plot twist! The magician who caused it would have
> to keep re-doing it. Conjures up images of a magical lawn mowing
> service...
Yes, basically, they have to keep re-casting the spells, every 6 or 24
months. The longer-duration spell is much harder to cast, basically
requiring specialized casting aid tools, but covers 10 square km per
casting, while the shorter duration one only covers 1 square km and can
be cast by ordinary mages with standard casting tools.
I imagine the barren belt is divded into sections, perhaps 12 in all,
with a senior Mage-Lord in charge of each section. Most would just cast
the standard spells, but one or two might do it with a twist, e.g. to
enhance fungal growth, to make that area of the "belt" even spookier
than the others. As long as the basic effect is there, I don't think the
High Mage-Lord would protest about embellishments.
Also the belt might well be a magic-economic mistake, being more
expensive than the political value it provides, but with the High
Mage-Lord realizing that he has to keep it maintained, because if the
belt falters, it will look as if the Mage-Lords have been weakened. So
they're stuck having to "mow the lawn", wasting significant ressources
(mage-days) that could have been put to better use.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> "Peter Knutsen" <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b0a9e51$0$278$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
>>Accepting the fact that there's a magic spell that can affect a large area
>>of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently growing
>>plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
>>repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what will
>>the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale, for the
>>ecology and the landscape?
>>
>>The spell doesn't affect fungi (at least I don't think so), and it
>>certainly doesn't affect animals directly, although obviously it is
>>impossible for most animals to live in such an area, but how dead would
>>such an area actually be?
>>
>
> Fungi are much more closely related to animals than plants.
From a medieval point of view, fungi probably are regarded as a kind of
plant.
Magic system-wise, there's Plant Magic and Animal Magic, and other kings
of magic, but no Fungi Magic, so they fall under the Plant category, but
some Plant Magic spells affect only true plants (perhaps most), some
affect only fungi, and some affect both plants and fungi.
>>Can fungi live without plants? I imagine there's matter to decompose (dead
>>plants, and animals starved to death) for some months or years after the
>>spell is cast the first time, but that matter will eventually have been
>>dealt with completely. What then?
>
> Okay, what do you mean by plants? The scientist means tracheophytes, but
That's a good question. I've run into a similar problem with regards to
magic affecting food, since there's no Food Magic kind of magic. Animal
Magic affects meat and fish and so forth, Plant Magic naturally affects
vegetable matter (and fungal matter, e.g. mushrooms), but there are also
Plant Magic spells to affect spices, and I think those affect all kinds
of spices, including animal-derived spices, although I haven't made up
my mind about whether they affect salt yet (salt is a spice, but it's
rather distanced from biology - I could have an Earth Magic spell
specifically to Enhance Salt, if I wanted to).
The various Enhance Food spells is a minor issue, though, compared to
the plant/fungi thing.
As for tracheophytes, English Wikipedia tells me that they're plants
that use some kind of tubes to move water and minerals around, so I
guess for me the ovious question to ask is: tracheophytes as opposed to
what? What is relevant that is not a tracheophyte?
Algae? Lichen? Something else?
> the magicians may simply attack those organisms that use chlorophyll, for
> instance. That would allow bacteria and the like that use chemicals to
> survive to have a limited existance in the area.
I think rather than attack directly, in a "doing unto their herbal hit
points"-sense, the spells thwart or block or nerf photosynthesis, either
completely or nearly so (99%).
The end result is the same, but the process might be a bit slower, which
fits the kind of magic they're using (Horror Magic isn't about being
efficient, it's about being scary bastards).
>>Also, what about the soil? Will it remain dirt-like, or turn into sand,
>>after some decades, or some centuries?
>>
>>Weather is not affected by the spell (it can cover fungi too, or not,
>>depending on my preference, but right now I'm not sure what difference it
>>would make), nor water sources such as wells, springs, streams or rivers.
>>
>>The spell is used to surround a small coastal nation (actually a magocracy
>>in Bretagne) with a "barren belt" 5 to 8 km wide, probably mostly as a
>>display of power directed at neighbouring nations, as well as at the
>>non-mage subjects living within it. At least I can't see the belt having
>>any real military value, when it is so narrow, relative to how far a human
>>can travel on foot, in half a day while carrying weapons and plenty of
>>supplies.
>
> In addition to what the others have said, flash floods from the
> sand/gravel/rock with no holding capacity into neighboring lands. If the
As far as the magocrats are concerned, neighbouring lands sit down and
shut up.
They're hostile and paranoid about both Normandy and the other
surrounding Christian lands, and would never object to any kind of
ecological and/or economic harrasment that their project inflicts upon
their neighbours. It's fine if they're weakened.
Some of the flash floods would probably wash the sand and gravel into
Bretagne, though, and that's not good. The magocrats can control the
weather, or deal with the wash-in, but that costs ressources (mage-days)
which is unfortunate.
> small coastal nation is lower than its border, it's going to get flooded a
> lot; if neighboring countries are, they're going to be really pissed. Yeah,
> lots of dust storms driven by the wind.
So land height matters a lot? That makes sense, that's something more to
check for me.
> In general, after a while the whole of the environment in the general is
> going to be a lot more unpleasant. (Something like paving over a large area
> to maintain car symbionts including the resulting pollution.)
That's the idea. Scare the crap out of their neighbours, as well as
their subject population. The magocrats rule through fear.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Although it occurs me to that the dust (and silt) is going to be full
> of organics and nitrates -- very fertile stuff, once it gets out of
> the spell zone. Not like the US Dust Bowl.
Then the question probably is, how large quantities will it come in?
I imagine wind blow-off will be fairly small quantities, but the
wash-off that Suzanne mentioned I have no idea about.
Perhaps the magocrats can simply abandon farmland around major rivers,
and do their agriculture elsewhere, using (mostly) non-magical
irrigation methods. The subject peasants can use ox carts (wheelbarrows
haven't been invented yet, AFAIK) to move the fertile silt from the
flooded areas to the farmland. How would that work?
> And it'll smell like shit gone off, I just bet.
Would anyone notice, given that it's the (early) medieval age?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> A limited existence? First, they'd go nuts feeding on all the
> freshly-dead plants (as long as the spell just "removes the life" from
> the plants rather than burns them or something). Then, they'd feed on
> each other...
>
> Not just bacteria, also protists like slime molds, some of which
> grow to the size of a large pizza according to:
>
> http://waynesword.palomar.edu/slime1.htm
Sounds fun, thanks!
I remember a spooky forest described (briefly) in one of the books in
Julian May's "Pliocene Exile" series. Not as spooky as Duskwood, but
there were a lot of fungi and trees, but otherwise not much life.
I don't (necessarily) want all of the "Barren Belt" to be like that, but
parts of it could be.
> If the magician is especially clever and does something intricate
> biochemically, the spell may not only kill plants but also favor large
> slime molds. I mean, man-eating size. Wouldn't that be fun?
Some of the senior Mage-Lords responsible for maintaining the "Barren
Belt" might do that. It's already clearly more of a show-of-force than a
functional tool, so modifying the standard spell, or casting the
standard spell along with a different spell, so that fungal growth is
favoured, is quite doable.
I'm not sure where protists fit into the magic categorization system,
but if they can form large organisms like slime molds, then they
probably fall in under Plant Magic as a "special catgory of plants",
because there isn't any better place to put then.
(Plant Magic is starting to look like the kitchen sink category.
"Everything that is living but not an animal nor of human-equivalent
intellect", goes into Plant Magic, including yeasts and slime molds and
fungi...)
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Does it kill all plant cells entering the "plant death zone"? If so,
No. Initially I wanted seaweed and algae to be able to drift across sea
areas affected by the spell, without dying outright, but being only
slightly weakened in some way (or more weakened if they spend much time
in the area), and I think the best "angle" is to say that the spell
blocks photosynthesis either entirely or else nearly so.
> then it will be impossible to import or export viable plants in any
> form. Fresh vegetables also cannot be imported or exported as they
> would immediately spoil and rot upon entering the zone.
The magocrats go for self-sufficiency. I think there is only very
limited trade with the British Isles, or perhaps none at all. On second
thought, they probably do import fish, because it's safer to import fish
than to allow their own subjects to sail out in boats, for fear of them
choosing not to come back (yes, it is a horrible place).
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Crown-Horned Snorkack
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > On 23 nov, 16:38, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >>Can fungi live without plants? I imagine there's matter to decompose
> >>(dead plants, and animals starved to death) for some months or years
> >>after the spell is cast the first time, but that matter will eventually
> >>have been dealt with completely. What then?
>
> > A small amount of plant matter will keep blowing into the area -
> > seeds, fallen leaves etc. Some decomposers use it.
>
> Such as fungi? Or insects?
>
> >>Also, what about the soil? Will it remain dirt-like, or turn into sand,
> >>after some decades, or some centuries?
>
> > Humus decomposes. Mineral silt and clay remains. However, since humus
> > sticks to clay, after decomposition of this silt and clay would more
> > easily wash (and silt also blow) away. Stones and gravel would remain,
> > sand would cover limited distances.
>
> So a sort of desert?
>
Yes, like that.
> >>Weather is not affected by the spell (it can cover fungi too, or not,
> >>depending on my preference, but right now I'm not sure what difference
> >>it would make), nor water sources such as wells, springs, streams or rivers.
>
> > In the absence of plants, there would tend to be more runoff in total.
> > No evapotranspiration, less evaporation in total. Water would rapidly
> > tend to run off after rain, and wash away clay, sand etc. Streams and
> > rivers would tend to be filled with mud and sand, broad but shallow in
> > flood, and split into shallow trickles in a wide sandy bed in drought.
>
> Okay, sounds like I'll have to try uing Google Earth and Google Maps to
> see what the area (Bretagne) is actually like, with regards to rivers.
>
> > Note that this would also apply to rivers which flow from barrens to
> > neighbouring unaccursed areas. Although if the curse does not adhere
> > to sediments like a poison, but rather to underlying uneroded bedrock,
>
> It is essetially a "bedrock" effect. "Stationary relative to the
> underlying continental plates" is probably a good definition.
>
> > then those lower courses would allow plants to cover the sediments,
> > which would tend to be consolidated by floodplain plants there and
> > confine the streams to narrower beds. But still wider and shallower
> > than neighbouring unaffected ricers. You can also expect lakes to form
> > ponded by the filled valleys.
>
> And what would the silt in the rivers and streams be like? Sand, or
> somehat fertile soil? Rich in the kinds of minerals that plants like?
>
In the initial period, it would be somewhat fertile (the humus and
clay washed off from previously vegetated soils). Of course repeated
flooding and wetness would hamper using it other than by wild wetland
plants.
Once the topsoil is washed off the barren belt, what remains would be
rock, sand and gravel. Silt and clay only on gently sloping surfaces
where water cannot get at it.
The rivers would still be liable to sudden floods and droughts, but
since they now have much less sediment to carry, they would cut their
beds down again into the soil they just deposited into their valleys.
So the valley fill would remain above the later floods as flat and
fertile terraces.
Similar things happen after periods of accelerated erosion due to
manmade clearing, climate change or volcanic eruptions.
> >>The spell is used to surround a small coastal nation (actually a
> >>magocracy in Bretagne) with a "barren belt" 5 to 8 km wide, probably
> >>mostly as a display of power directed at neighbouring nations, as well
> >>as at the non-mage subjects living within it. At least I can't see the
> >>belt having any real military value, when it is so narrow, relative to
> >>how far a human can travel on foot, in half a day while carrying weapons
> >>and plenty of supplies.
>
> > It does have a real military value. 5 to 8 km wide barren belt devoid
> > of any trees, bushes or hedges could be watched from adjoining
> > hilltops or towers, to catch sight of and shoot any such hostile
> > pedestrians.
>
> > However, hills and ridges inside the belt would still hamper views. As
>
> Well, over centuries, the magocrats can do some fairly serious landscape
> engineering, if there are hills or ridges that concerns them.
>
And they can consider the locations of existing hills in picking the
course of the barren belt.
> However, their paranoia is more about small groups of men or women with
> staves, i.e. rival spellcasters or other magic users from outside,
> rather than large armies. Large armies are easy to deal with. Not that
> any army would dare attack Bretagne. The area has a stark reputation,
> mainly because of the belt. It's a propaganda tool, more than anything
> else, I think.
>
What about people from inside getting out?
A naked eye observer can spot a moving figure over empty field at
several km. During clear day. But there are nights, and foggy and
drizzly days (common in Bretagne).
> > would river valleys. Gullies newly eroded due to the barrenness might
> > provide badlands landscape for shelter, and barren sand can even in
> > fairly moist climate form blown dunes also taller than man.
>
> Dunes are more of a problem, since even if "spelled down" they would
> tend to reform, whereas if spells are used to tear down an
> earth/rock-formation, it'll stay torn down.
>
Allowing lichen cover would do much to control erosion. It would still
be an empty and forbidding landscape, devoid of tall plants to shelter
a man.
Also, consider the effects of forbidding photosynthesis 6 months a
time.
If you cast the spell in the autumn, the effects are limited. Plants
are not photosynthesizing anyway - trees indeed are bare of leaves so
a spell against photosynthesis has no effect.
If the spell is cast in spring... compare the effects of covering a
planted area with a roof.
Plenty of plants do not grow well in houses. Precisely because it is
hard in winter. Short days, low sun, mostly overcast sky, so little
light for photosynthesis. Yet the houses are warm - so the plant needs
a lot of winter supplies. Overwintering in the open or in unheated
rooms is much better because it is cold and the winter supplies last
better.
If you systematically cast the spell in spring, allowing it to expire
in autumn and renewing the next spring, then an odd assemblage of
hardy plants would endure - photosynthesizing in the mild Bretagne
winters and hibernating the not so hot summers. But that assemblage
would include no trees or bushes so the landscape would still be open
to view.
alie...@gmail.com
> n...@bid.nes wrote:
> > A limited existence? First, they'd go nuts feeding on all the
> > freshly-dead plants (as long as the spell just "removes the life" from
> > the plants rather than burns them or something). Then, they'd feed on
> > each other...
>
> > Not just bacteria, also protists like slime molds, some of which
> > grow to the size of a large pizza according to:
>
> >http://waynesword.palomar.edu/slime1.htm
>
> Sounds fun, thanks!
>
> I remember a spooky forest described (briefly) in one of the books in
> Julian May's "Pliocene Exile" series. Not as spooky as Duskwood, but
> there were a lot of fungi and trees, but otherwise not much life.
Yeah, I recall that too. similar effect, but different. IYKWIM.
> I don't (necessarily) want all of the "Barren Belt" to be like that, but
> parts of it could be.
I see you have different parts of the belt handled by different
mages. Who oversees how the different parts interact?
> > If the magician is especially clever and does something intricate
> > biochemically, the spell may not only kill plants but also favor large
> > slime molds. I mean, man-eating size. Wouldn't that be fun?
>
> Some of the senior Mage-Lords responsible for maintaining the "Barren
> Belt" might do that. It's already clearly more of a show-of-force than a
> functional tool, so modifying the standard spell, or casting the
> standard spell along with a different spell, so that fungal growth is
> favoured, is quite doable.
>
> I'm not sure where protists fit into the magic categorization system,
> but if they can form large organisms like slime molds, then they
> probably fall in under Plant Magic as a "special catgory of plants",
> because there isn't any better place to put then.
>
> (Plant Magic is starting to look like the kitchen sink category.
> "Everything that is living but not an animal nor of human-equivalent
> intellect", goes into Plant Magic, including yeasts and slime molds and
> fungi...)
Well, slime molds are not really molds at all. They were named that
when they were thought to be fungi, but they aren't. They're neither
plant (they don't photosynthesize and don't make cellulose frinst) nor
animal (no meat, bones, or stuff like that); they're not bacteria,
yeast, nor fungus. Ordinarily they form (slowly) mobile colonies with
no particular differentiation, meaning there are no specialized
tissues; each cell eats and poops on its own, though they adhere to
each other and move as a unit. When reproduction time comes along
(they start to dry up) they stop and then form specialized tissues; a
thick base, a tall stalk, and a sort of spore shooter at the top of
the stalk that, well, shoots spores. When the spores hit a comfy spot
(usually means "wet") they turn into amoeba-like cells that eat and
multiply, then form an aggregate (NOT an "organism" as it has no
organs) which proceeds to slime mold its way through life.
Some have quite striking appearances:
http://www.shortcourses.com/naturelog/slime-mold-05.jpg
first part of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvTvaxVySlE
http://mason.gmu.edu/~jlawrey/biol304/biol304/slime%20mold.JPG
Just imagine a very large version of one of those following you
around...
Mark L. Fergerson
Tim Little
> Do cyanobacteria do photosynthesis?
They do indeed. They are probably not terribly different from the
first known photosynthetic organisms on Earth, the ones responsible
for polluting the atmosphere with oxygen.
- Tim
Christian Weisgerber
> Do cyanobacteria do photosynthesis?
Hell, yes. They invented it. Every other organism that does
photosynthesis probably has picked up cyanobacteria as endosymbionts
at some point, e.g., chloroplasts were derived that way.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<na...@mips.inka.de> writes
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Do cyanobacteria do photosynthesis?
>
>Hell, yes. They invented it. Every other organism that does
>photosynthesis probably has picked up cyanobacteria as endosymbionts
>at some point, e.g., chloroplasts were derived that way.
>
cyanobacteria - green sulfur bacteria, green non-sulfur bacteria and
purple sulfur bacteria, and several groups of purple bacteria. None of
these produce oxygen as a by product of photosynthesis.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
TBerk
Following along in others footprints I'd think (if) the bedrock
remained after the topsoil and dirt/sand/rocks had been washed
downstream then along with the growth on the coastline of deltas and
effluvial fans of marshland, (think Mississippi, etc) there might also
be mineral wealth washed out and exposed.
Perhaps Prospecting Poachers might brave the Dead Lands to root for
Gold and other stuff.
berk
alie...@gmail.com
Excellent point, the Law of Unintended Consequences always applies.
Also much of that mineral wealth will be washed _out_ of the zone,
_into_ the bordering lands, increasing their wealth at the expense of
the Mages!
Mark L. Fergerson
JimboCat
> Accepting the fact that there's a magic spell that can affect a large
> area of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently
> growing plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
> repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what
> will the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale,
> for the ecology and the landscape?
If you want some actual experimental data on this subject, the
keywords "Hubbard Brook" are a good starting point.
In the initial early 1970s experiment, they clearcut a small watershed
in the New Hampshire mountains and spread defoliants to prevent any
regrowth while they monitored the results. The plan was to keep it up
for five years, but after only three they began to fear that the
erosion was so bad they were creating a truly long-term barrens that
might take decades, or even centuries, to recover.
The very first year of no defoliants produced lush re-growth and
everybody took a big sigh of relief. Main web site for this and many
newer and ongoing experiments at
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Growth of growth plates causes us to grow"
Ask A Scientist, Ithaca Journal, 17 Sept. 2008
Ryan McCoskrie
> Accepting the fact that there's a magic spell that can affect a large
> area of land (as in several square kilometers) to kill all currently
> growing plants and prevent new plants from arising, with this spell used
> repeatedly to create a defensive "barren belt" around a nation, what
> will the realistic consequences be, on a decades- or centuries-scale,
> for the ecology and the landscape?
[Snip the rest, it's only fine details]
Droughts, huge droughts. The native forest was largely felled upon the
arrival of Europeans here in Canterbury and we suffer because of it.
--
Quote of the login:
When we write programs that "learn", it turns out we do and they don't.