glaurung: (Default)
When the "cities plant male trees because they don't want to deal with cleaning up fruit, and this makes allergies worse" meme made its rounds a while back, I didn't think much of it, but now that I've read this thread, I went and refreshed my memory about tree sex.

The meme is wrong, but the thread linked above swerves too far the other way and ends up wrong as well.

Actually, species that have separate sexes make up about 1/5 of the trees in the Eastern US. When planting trees of those species, cities may choose to go with male trees only, but probably don't bother unless the fruit/seeds are large and messy but the trees themselves are desirable (selecting for the gender of tree adds to the cost, and cities are loath to spend more money when they can avoid it by just picking a different, non-messy species or not bothering to screen their plantings for sex).

Things to remember:
1. Plant sex is complicated.
2. Dioecious is a fancy greek term for species that have separate organisms for male and female reproductive functions. Nearly all animals we're familiar with are dioecious. Among plants, dioecy is relatively rare. The "urban male trees are responsible for your allergies" meme is talking about dioecious species, which are a minority among trees (1/5 in the Eastern US, 1/20 worldwide).
3. The only pollen that's an issue for those with allergies is pollen from wind-pollinated species, which would be many trees, most grasses, and various herbs (Flowers that look pretty are not wind pollinated). The pollen from male dioecious trees that have been deliberately planted because they are male and will not litter the ground with fruit is a drop in the bucket of the overall pollen load.

Nerdy tree sex tidbits:
4. Non-dioecious plants cover a lot of variety. They can produce one flower that performs both sexual functions (cosexual). They can have separate pollen and seed producing parts on the same plant (monoecious). Or, just to be different, they can have some combination of cosexual and monoecious bits on the same or separate plants (polygamous).
5. monoecious and polygamous trees cover the gamut from having sexual phases of life (eg, making pollen when young and seeds when mature), to switching from making pollen to making seeds and back again every year or every few years, to being boring and producing both each year.
glaurung: (Default)
I enjoyed the first two-thirds of The Omnivore's Dilemma. The last third had some good bits in it, and some bits that I just skipped completely. Which was pretty much the case with the previous Pollan book I read, The Botany of Desire.

In The Botany of Desire, Pollan talked about four economic plants not in terms of what humans got out of them, but in terms of how the plants have evolved in order to cause humans to spread their seeds throughout the world. I enjoyed the book until I got to the part devoted to cannabis, in which Pollan ignored the 8,000+ year history of cannabis cultivation (for rope and fabric and food) and focused exclusively on the plant's use as a drug in the late 20th century, and how the plant was transforming in the US and Europe from a field weed into an indoor hydroponics plant adapted to be grown under artificial lights. All because of Pollan's conceit that he was not discussing four plants, but rather four human desires that the plants were exploiting (Cannabis being "intoxication" or some such).

At that point, I found myself wondering how Pollan might have truncated or distorted the history of the other plants he talked about to shoehorn them into his artificial schema of desires, and I put the book aside unfinished.

In Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan is once again creating an elaborate and rather artificial schema to compare U.S. factory farming to U.S. organic farming, and to contrast the mainstream way of food in the U.S. to the "slow food" movement. In each section, he traces a specific type of food from its origins as a crop to its final incarnation as a meal that he and his family/friends eat.

The section on factory farming ends with a meal at McDonald's; the section on organic farming has two meals, one made up of faux-organic food grown factory-style by the organic arms of big agribusiness companies and purchased at a chain health food store, the other made up of locally grown, pasture-raised meat and eggs and farmer's market veggies; and the final section of the book details Pollan's own hunting of pigs, gathering of mushrooms and gardening of veggies for a sort of "extreme slow-food" meal. I found the narcissism of the last part quite boring and skipped a lot, but there were some interesting bits in there about mushrooms and about the ethics of eating meat.

Along the way, I learned a great deal about modern factory farming and big agribusiness in the US today - the book filled in a lot of context, background, and missing pieces that other books I've read on the same subject (Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, Cook's Diet for a Dead Planet, Nestle's Food Politics) left out due to their narrower focus.

Overall, I think Pollan is really just too full of himself for me to actually enjoy his books wholeheartedly. But this time, he picked topics that I was already seriously interested in (factory farming and processed foods, and how they are destroying the world and us), and provided a lot of interesting information, especially a global overview, that I had not encountered previously. So I'm glad I read the book, even if I didn't fully enjoy it. And while I may regret this later, I have added Pollan's In Defence of Food to my want list.Read more... )

Profile

glaurung: (Default)
glaurung_quena

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
111213 14151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags