Why would they do significant damage to boreal forests? I always thought earthworms are great for the soil, and there are boreal forests in Europe too.
I got as far as reading that the accelerated decomp is bad for forests that had slow-decomp as a feature of their survival. I stopped reading there because I was getting depressed that this thing I thought was good is causing harm.
The US forests got used to not having them, so now some trees like maples need a thick layer of leaves on the ground to trap moisture around their roots so they don’t dry out. There are also native plants that need this layer to help protect them from temperature swings.
Wait so you're telling me that there was a time and space on earth without those fuckers? They are my nemesis, my biggest phobia, and just imagining a reality without them is a second of relaxation that I could never convey in its grandeur.
Why I have a phobia of them? (Along, btw, with maggots, larvae, caterpillars, etc.) I don't think I can give you a good answer, because, well, there is no rational answer to that. I understand they are harmless to me and even good for the environment. Which is why the thought of a place of earth that is both healthy and worm(-alike)-free is literally a paradise dream to me.
There is no reason for the complete and utter shock feeling. I can't explain it. But I would, for real, rather die than get close to this. I am very willing to chop my arm off to not touch one. I know I was very lucky for the last 32 years to have avoided these situations and I don't know what to do when they will come up some time in the future. But I do stand by what I said and I think and reconsider it on a regular basis. So far I would rather die or chop my arm off. It's not a feeling like a panic attack, it is a constant panic mode, a shock, a feeling of existential threat.
You might wonder why I don't do therapy. The big problem is that I absolutely don't want it to be otherwise. I don't want to not have this phobia, I just don't want the triggers in my life. The thought of looking at a worm and be ok with it is nothing that I feel is worth aquiring. Irrationally, all of you who are just ok with these creatures or tolerate them are the weird ones to me. How does it not make you panic? It feels like the natural and right response to me. At the same time, I know why - because there is no harm. I know your reactions are normal. I just, emotionally, absolutely don't want this to be normal.
PS: I've been thinking for days on whether to reply or not and decided this time to not delete that worm related comment but actually try to tell you. My first reaction on replies when I happen to comment on this issue is to delete every evidence of me ever talking about worms so that I don't end up being further engaged or ridiculed. (I understand the latter, I always try to imagine someone having a phobia of squirrels, which are like the cutest thing.) I also tried my best to spell the words out, which is hard to me. I usually just write ~ when I text someone. Anyway, sorry for the late reply.
Hey I didn’t mean to sound like I was ridiculing you. I wasn’t sure if you were joking or just being absurd. I genuinely was curious why you have a phobia.
I get it. Some people hate spiders or snakes or anything that doesn’t resemble comfort. It’s not exactly uncommon.
I am sorry you feel that way and have to deal with that phobia. Just know you aren’t alone.
I hope you can find peace. Thank you for replying.
No. Earthworms are native to the United States, says Melissa McCormick, ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, but the earthworms in some northern parts of the country (including Vermont) aren’t indigenous. Thousands of years ago, glaciers that covered North America and reached as far south as present-day Illinois, Indiana and Ohio wiped out native earthworms. Species from Europe and Asia, most likely introduced unintentionally in ship ballast or the roots of imported plants, have spread throughout North America.
The only world where the majority of North America doesn't have native earthworms is the Mercator projection. Sure, there are both non-native and invasive earthworms; however, its almost inevitable that these organisms would have made it this far north at some point: they were almost assuredly there prior to the latest glaciation. Owing to the fact that its not covered in a mile of ice any more, the worms were coming.
Now I'm confused. Here's what Wikipedia says. The last ice age was 11,000 years ago, so presumably they should have spread back out northwards since then... or maybe they needed to evolve the ability to survive in the cold first, which they haven't had time to do? IDK.
I'll edit the title to be more accurate. I don't necessarily see a conflict between the fine details of what the article says / what Wikipedia says / what Smithsonian says, but my title is misleading and the careless way I read the article led me to totally misunderstand it.
11k years isn't a ton of time. But yeah, I'm sure 🦆🪿 have been crapping out worm 🪱 🥚 s. Also consider that the premise of them existing is based on a sampling of some data.
Academically I consider myself a scientific materialist, which means I'm trying to believe as little as I possibly can(but not more). The way I try to think about these things is in terms of abstractions of belief; I believe the field data however much I do based on their protocol and method; I believe the derived statistics from those data quite a bit less depending whatever uncertainty metrics they offer and the specific procedure; I believe the conclusions even less depending on how well supported, and I believe theory, an abstraction and consolidation of conclusions and results the least.
I'm spelling this out because I don't believe scientific philosophy or it's extensions to be well taught or understood by both ley and trained individuals. There is a tension that exists between theoreticians and experimentalists, that frankly, the theoreticians are regularlly coming out on the wrong side of. I think this has its origins in the academic tradition of western civilization coming from religion. I work to invert the belief structure by focusing on only having to believe the most minimum that I need to believe.
This is where factoids become, well problematic. There is a tendency to see scientifically generated statements as statements of fact, when actually, for a scientific statement to be scientific, it can't be taken to be 100% true. At it's core, the statement needs to be falsifiable to be a scientific statement. Which means, it can't be 100% true; there needs to be at least some epsilon of uncertainty for a statement to be falsifiable, which means while we might be highly confident in it, there is some potential it just may not be that way.
But the tradition of religion doesn't work that way. Truth is absolute in the religious philosophies that underpin the western academic tradition. So culturally there is this tendency to want to 'believe' the most abstracted elements of scientific work (conclusions, theories, etc..), when in fact these elements are the things we should believe the least, because of the cultural definitions and understandings of truth that these traditions find their roots in.
So it's not unusual to want to make broad statements of fact from limited information, but we should be considering the caveat that this thing we are saying is what we believe the least. We may still believe it, but we believe the statistics used the generate the conclusion moreso, and we believe the data generated to support the statistics even moreso. It's just not particularly interesting to humans to say something along the lines of "We did not find evidence of earthworm behavior in this sediment, that sediment or that other sediment over there", when in fact that is where we should be putting the majority of the weight of our belief (assuming you subscribe to scientific materialist as a way of getting at the truth of things).
Factoids don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, but just because something is pleasing to think, this has no bearing on its relationship to truth.
This is a fascinating analysis of culture and religion of origin and it's influence on scientific views. I also admire your rigorous skepticism, but I have a question:
Why, for the love of Om, did you used emojis like you did?
just because something is pleasing to think, this has no bearing on its relationship to truth.
Like "yeah, I'm sure 🦆🪿 have been crapping out worm 🪱 🥚"?
Earthworms aren't internal parasites and thus probably never evolved the ability for their eggs to survive 🦆🪿 digestion. They produce 2-5mm cocoons which have the eggs and which are deposited into soil, and which I don't think would survive duck digestion.
It takes time for earth worms to occupy available ecosystems. It's not like they're natural migrators. In particular, they're slow to cross rivers. Not very good swimmers either. I'm addition to agriculture and construction, anglers also seem to be spreading them.
The European worms colonizers brought are fine, they're similar enough to the ones that used to be here.
What's bad are the "crazy worms" which I believe come from Asia?
You can tell the difference because a normal worm just moves around like you'd expect. A "crazy worm" is like a fish out of water violently flopping around.
Those you should kill because they're invasive.
But the worms we remember as kids are fine. Just non-native, but that's different than evasive.
I think you literally made 100% of the first half of this up
There are no earthworms that used to be here; read the article. Crazy worms do exactly the same thing (remove the layer of leaf litter that traditional NA boreal forests depend on), they just spread a little more quickly which makes it a little more of a problem. But the essential issue is the same. And I don't think killing either one of them makes any difference at all; humans will not encounter either one on anything even remotely similar to the scale that would make going after them on an individual level a useful thing to do.
Edit: Okay I am totally wrong; the article talks about northern forests only, and what I'm saying isn't true of the US / North America as a whole.
“Of the 182 taxa of earthworms found in the United States and Canada, 60 (33%) are introduced species, these earthworm species are primarily from Europe and Asia.”
There are native species of earthworms in North America. Just that there are no native species at certain latitudes, because of the last ice age.
“Earthworms are shifting their ranges northwards into forests between 45° and 69° latitude in North America that have lacked native earthworms since the last ice age.”
While it may not do much to go after them on an individual level, there are ways to mitigate or slow their breeding and migration. For example they could introduce native predators that could reduce their populations.
There are no earthworms that used to be here; read the article.
Admittedly I didn't, because I already know this.
But here you go:
During the last ice age, which ended roughly 10,000 years ago, a massive ice sheet covered what’s roughly the northern third of the continent. Scientists think that this most recent glaciation killed off the earthworms that may have inhabited the area.
If not, just know that the person you're asking will either ignore you or have to randomly guess what you mean.
During the last ice age, which ended roughly 10,000 years ago, a massive ice sheet covered what’s roughly the northern third of the continent. Scientists think that this most recent glaciation killed off the earthworms that may have inhabited the area.
The European worms colonizers brought are fine, they’re similar enough to the ones that used to be here.
What’s bad are the “crazy worms” which I believe come from Asia?
You can tell the difference because a normal worm just moves around like you’d expect. A “crazy worm” is like a fish out of water violently flopping around.
Those you should kill because they’re invasive.
But the worms we remember as kids are fine. Just non-native, but that’s different than evasive.
And if you didn't read that (don't feel too bad, neither did OP) why would I take the time to find more articles you won't read?
How about a quiz, if you accurately find the answers that are in the article, and post the answers you found for the class, I'll find sources for the rest.
Show me you care about learning more than arguing, and I have zero issues taking the time to help.
Don't, and that's cool. But I'm not here to argue, so I'll probably just block you
no, it doesnt. it talks about worms european colonizers brought, that you claim are fine, and doesn't mention asia or "crazy worms" anywhere, nor any of the distinguishing behavior you're talking about.
The article and what I said is 100% accurate about the northern US and most of Canada
It's not accurate as to the southern US or North American in general. Wherever the glaciers came they killed the earthworms, and for the most part they didn't bounce back (for reasons that to me are not clear) until the Europeans brought European worms, but outside of glacier reach everything was fine and earthworms and forests have both been happy.
Citation is OP article + Smithsonian link + Wikipedia link posted elsewhere; they all say more or less the same thing
Crazy worms are real; it's a whole different issue of invasive species as opposed to the issue of normal earthworms being above 45 degrees latitude in the first place.
I still think that the whole issue with crazy worms is, more or less, that they can do the exact same damage the non crazy worms can do, just a little more effectively, and so it's sort of a side issue as you were saying. I think there's a certain confusion between "invasive worms" meaning one or the other. But IDK, I am not a worm expert, I just learned this stuff today.
No, see, it'll be fine because we have a whole line of autonomous backhoes that we're going to release afterwards. To get rid of the sidewalks. It literally can't go wrong.
