I’ve been thinking a lot about the whole Norway maple vs. native sugar maple dynamic, and I wanted to throw out a theory cause why not. The standard view is usually that Norway maples are almost invincible because they produce a massive amount of seeds every year, their bitter, milky samaras protect them from being eaten by local wildlife, and they have outstanding shade tolerance, but I’m starting to wonder if this all might actually be a long-term evolutionary trap in the US. My thinking is that because nearly 100% of their samaras avoid getting predated, they all sprout together, forcing the species into a brutal internal civil war with its own siblings rather than actually eliminating competition. Studies show that Norway maples "like" growing under their own canopy as seedlings, outcompeting just about all other species in that deep shade. However, it also, once again, leaves only other Norway seedlings with the same adaptations to compete with. If you look at how they behave in Europe, they are used to being scattered gap-hunters held in check by the deep shade of Norway spruce and beech, so they aren't exactly genetically programmed to have tons of their own species right next to them. It seems like when they form dense, 100% monocultures over here, their aggressive, shallow roots might just end up entangling and dehydrating the topsoil, trapping their own offspring in a stagnant, resource-starved understory mat that eventually causes the whole stand to lock up and decline from its own crowded proximity. On the contrary, the Sugar Maple evolved to be around others of its kind, and it shows. On a Sugar Maple mast year where overcrowding also would happen, the tasty, nutricious, appealing samara population is thinned out by predators enough for a large amount of trees to grow without being choked. In a nutshell, Norway Maples are absolutely devistating to northeastern hardwood forests, but I believe if they were to become especially widely dominant, they'll have a lot of trouble keeping up. Once again, I could be misinterpreting the long-term timeline or missing some key data here, so I’d really appreciate any critiques, alternative perspectives, or even flat-out rebuttles. Thanks for reading my ideas!

College aged student, two years into a philosophy degree. My initial plan was to go to law school after my bachelors and becoming a lawyer, after job shadowing however and taking a few law classes as electives I realize I hate that field and do not want to work in it. Funnily enough, I do love philosophy but I realize that the kind of jobs that I would work as a philosophy grad are office ones which I do not mind but it is certainly not how I want my life to pan out. I'm not really one who enjoys the money, I live cheaply sustaining myself with rice and beans and reading books and it is enough. So going to a business school and sacrificing my life as an analyst to get rich also doesn't really appeal to me anymore.

Been researching into forestry, will admit been a city slicker all my life but I do love nature and it makes me feel most at peace. The idea of working out in the woods feels nice, mainly just concerned if I swap majors though about

1. Job security

2. The actual work

What I mean by the second point is I don't want an idealized glamorized version of it, I know of the surface level cons such as the bugs, ticks, and other things with being out in the woods. But is there anything else I need to worry about when considering this career?

For reference I live out in Arizona, considering going to NAU after finishing up community college for this. Though I'm really willing to move anywhere, don't really mind was considering being a nomad for a bit actually.