SAHEL SOLUTION: Allowing trees to grow and shade fields has helped boost yields for farmers across the Sahel--outlined in blue on this map--a possible adaptation to climate change.
Image: Map by Robert Simmon, based on GIMMS vegetation data and World Wildlife Fund ecoregions data. Courtesy of NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Mark Hertsgaard's book, Hot: Living Through the Next 50 Years on Earth.
Yacouba Sawadogo was not sure how old he was. With a hatchet slung over his shoulder, he strode through the woods and fields of his farm with an easy grace. But up close his beard was gray, and it turned out he had great-grandchildren, so he had to be at least sixty and perhaps closer to seventy years old. That means he was born well before 1960, the year the country now known as Burkina Faso gained independence from France, which explains why he was never taught to read and write.
Nor did he learn French. He spoke his tribal language, Mòoré, in a deep, unhurried rumble, occasionally punctuating sentences with a brief grunt. Yet despite his illiteracy, Yacouba Sawadogo is a pioneer of the tree-based approach to farming that has transformed the western Sahel over the last twenty years.
"Climate change is a subject I have something to say about," said Sawadogo, who unlike most local farmers had some understanding of the term. Wearing a brown cotton gown, he sat beneath acacia and zizyphus trees that shaded a pen holding guinea fowl. Two cows dozed at his feet; bleats of goats floated through the still late-afternoon air. His farm in northern Burkina Faso was large by local standards—fifty acres—and had been in his family for generations. The rest of his family abandoned it after the terrible droughts of the 1980s, when a 20 percent decline in annual rainfall slashed food production throughout the Sahel, turned vast stretches of savanna into desert, and caused millions of deaths by hunger. For Sawadogo, leaving the farm was unthinkable. "My father is buried here," he said simply. In his mind, the droughts of the 1980s marked the beginning of climate change, and he may be right: scientists are still analyzing when man-made climate change began, some dating its onset to the mid-twentieth century. In any case, Sawadogo said he had been adapting to a hotter, drier climate for twenty years now.
"In the drought years, people found themselves in such a terrible situation they had to think in new ways," said Sawadogo, who prided himself on being an innovator. For example, it was a long-standing practice among local farmers to dig what they called zai—shallow pits that collected and concentrated scarce rainfall onto the roots of crops. Sawadogo increased the size of his zai in hopes of capturing more rainfall. But his most important innovation, he said, was to add manure to the zai during the dry season, a practice his peers derided as wasteful.
Sawadogo's experiments proved out: crop yields duly increased. But the most important result was one he hadn't anticipated: trees began to sprout amid his rows of millet and sorghum, thanks to seeds contained in the manure. As one growing season followed another, it became apparent that the trees—now a few feet high—were further increasing his yields of millet and sorghum while also restoring the degraded soil's vitality. "Since I began this technique of rehabilitating degraded land, my family has enjoyed food security in good years and bad," Sawadogo told me.
Farmers in the western Sahel have achieved a remarkable success by deploying a secret weapon often overlooked in wealthier places: trees. Not planting trees. Growing them. Chris Reij, a Dutch environmental specialist at VU University Amsterdam who has worked on agricultural issues in the Sahel for thirty years, and other scientists who have studied the technique say that mixing trees and crops—a practice they have named "farmer-managed natural regeneration," or FMNR, and that is known generally as agro-forestry—brings a range of benefits. The trees' shade and bulk offer crops relief from the overwhelming heat and gusting winds. "In the past, farmers sometimes had to sow their fields three, four, or five times because wind-blown sand would cover or destroy seedlings," said Reij, a silver-haired Dutchman with the zeal of a missionary. "With trees to buffer the wind and anchor the soil, farmers need sow only once."
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add CommentAcacia trees like lupins, peas & beans, fix nitrogen in the soil, aiding fertility. Blaming global warming for the drought is another pathetic attempt to foster the new religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh yes, the new religion Carlyle. Change. Climate change. Habitat restoration. Changes in agricultural practices. Changes in politics, hard to imagine that the farmers didn't own the trees (shrubs?) on their lands. Sustainability. Hope the message spreads far and wide and fast. This article is totally positive, unlike your use of the word pathetic. Seems you are one of the "blame game" players... how's that denial system workin' for ya?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are fortunate enough to live as long as I have, one day you will be embarrassed by your naivety. The new religion is just the latest version of 'The End Of The World Is Nigh', that I have seen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am all for innovation & improvement in farming practices, including GM crops by the way, & reduction in pollution. Nuclear power offers the only viable means of reducing coal consumption for power generation. There is more radioactive discharge from particulate matter from a coal fired power station than from a nuclear by the way. Carbon Di-oxide is not pollution, in fact it is aiding that African farmer. It is essential plant food.
I've probably lived as long as you and it's your naivety you should worry about. Atomic power is indeed needed to replace coal. But, continued use of coal will increase the carbon dioxide levels far beyond today's level. Maybe if there were no increase, things would be OK. It isn't a political argument. Keep reading; but not just the articles that agree with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the evidence? .2Cº temperature increase in global temperature over the past decade supposedly. Even if this is accurate, how much above the warming trend is this, since the little ice age? How come? Do you really believe the global measurements are accurate to .02Cº per annum or that the records for earlier times have not been skewed. East Anglia comes to mind. Such a tiny smoothing or graph starting point turns the data on its head. What about the real pollutants as far as global warming potential is concerned as I posted on another string? As a driver of global warming, nitrogen trifluoride, (used in the manufacture of photo voltaic (solar) cells) is 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/nitrogen-trifluoride-as-an-anthropogenic-greenhouse-forcing-gas/
Perhaps anything connected with alternative energy does not count.
There has probably been a small temperature rise, so far. The problem is that CO2 levels are accelerating so the real problem will be in the future. Many sources have indeed stressed worst case scenarios. C02 is however the one greenhouse gas to worry about because of the huge amounts being produced above and beyond current levels. The amount of nitrogen-trifluoride that will be produced won't be measured in millions of tons, you think?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver a period of 100 years and the green savings are more than six times the pollution. It's 17,200. It helps to read more carefully.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWikipedia...check for yourself. Also, there are safer alternatives that can be used.
No, it certainly will not be produced in the millions of tons but I find the squeaky clean environmental credentials attributed to photo voltaic solar electricity offensive. When the energy costs, not only of the cells but of the other necessary infrastructure plus the environmental impact of the production process is taken into account, the unreliability, the fact that electrical production rarely meets benchmarks because no account is taken of simple things like dust accumulation, the fact that backup systems have to be running in the background all make me very cynical of the environmental lobby in regard to alternative energy. If the movement is so convinced of the evils of carbon dioxide, why is nuclear power not enthusiastically embraced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too would like to see coal & gas phased out as the primary fuels for production of electricity. There is undoubtedly significant particulate & other pollution caused by coal burning for this purpose, leaving aside carbon dioxide. I believe our use of coal & gas for these purposes is extremely wasteful & is robing future generations of these resources which have many other uses, when we have a clear cleaner alternative.
I am extremely sceptical about any harm being done by carbon dioxide because there have been many much higher concentrations in the past without being followed by temperature effects. In fact temperature increases have been followed by higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, not been preceded by it. Also, carbon dioxide really is plant food & will promote further natural vegetation & thus uptake. For the earth to replenish its supply of coal & gas however is a different matter entirely. Both coal & gas can be liquefied to provide fuel for transport as our oil is depleted. There are no easy alternatives for liquid fuel. The energy density of things like hydrogen is too low. Bio fuels have nasty side effects except where they are a by-product but can never hope to meet the growing demand for liquid fuel. Electric vehicles except on a minor niche scale are a joke. They still need a primary energy source for a start. Nuclear energy is a must. If the billions wasted on projects that have no hope purely on simple physics had been spent on nuclear energy development, the world would be a cleaner & more prosperous place, not to mention the thousands of miners lives lost each year.
Nuclear power augment, rather than replace coal. More power on the grid leads to wasteful use. People have and will waste resources until it hurts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext generation LEDs, Insulation, fly-weight vehicles, and community based living is the cheapest, and fastest way to reduce use of mined energy sources.
Readers such as Carlyle are clearly not interested in much beyond attempting to act as gadflies, or they would spend more time reading carefully rather than searching for agenda satisfying quotes.
Not just CO2 - Methane, which is much more powerful greenhouse gas, is going to become a very big problem as the sub-arctic tundras start thawing (already started.) There is a huge amount of methane trapped in the frozen soil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal is the cheapest and most abundant source of energy for making electricity. Gasoline has the highest energy density for moving vehicles. We can maintain a high standard of living in the next decade or two by changing nothing. Having to reduce emissions or switching to a different infrastructure will be a real pain. And real expensive. And China's starting a new coal-fired plant every four days, so why bother? The need to start to make changes soon is not a religion, movement nor a conspiracy. The past decade has been warmer than at any time in the Midieval warm period. This does increase the risk of releasing huge amounts of frozen methane. Building nuclear plants is expensive and will take several years. Manufacturing solar panels will produce some pollution. People don't want windmills in their backyards. Electric vehicles being charged from coal produced electricity is silly and replacing batteries costs an arm and a leg.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can bet that a lot of the information minimizing the problems with CO2 have been funded by coal and petroleum and everyone who'd prefer business as usual. Maybe the data will be more convincing in the near future. But if you wait until the methane starts popping, it'll be too late.
We should build nuclear plants and solar panels (have to dust them and clean off the bird droppings) and windmills. We need to drive to the store fewer times, lower the thermostat a couple of degrees and buy more efficient appliances and light bulbs. We'll have to set goals that the developing countries can agree with or it won't really matter. Investing in alternative energy sources will be more expensive at first; the payback won't come until later. But, every step taken will be one less required later. I don't have the answers. I won't be around to suffer the repercussions. But, I'll move in the right direction and be a little poorer. Maybe I'll sleep better.
For solar panels - not certain if anyone has started to use them yet but, there are several self-cleaning glass technologies available. Basically while dust or bird dropping can settle on them the first rain or a good hosing will remove everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe surfeit of co2 in the atmosphere is obviously causing major climate change. But if the changes in average world temperature cannot persuade Carlyle, then the consequences of the melting of the Greenland glacier and the start of the melting of the Western Antarctic glacier are sufficient to persuade most people. Unfortunately, with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, this melting cannot be stopped. Fortunately, it will take about 600 years for the Antarctic glacier to fully melt. Of course the sea level will rise every year for the next 600 years. And coastal cities will be threatened. Unfortunately, over 80% of human population reside in coastal cities. After 600 years the earth will only have 2/3 of the land area it had in 1960. The sea level will be 167 feet higher than it was in 1960. And the Carlyles of this world will continue to deny human involvement in and the effects of global warming even as they participate in the migration to the increasingly crowded higher land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article reminds me of an incredible video on TEDTalks (biologist Willie Smits has found a way to re-grow clearcut rainforest in Borneo, 23 min.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vfuCPFb8wk&feature=autoplay&list=PL675D9077A674006B&index=8&playnext=4
Has anyone noticed the absence of the designer fashion spam? Good riddance.
I do not disagree with the need to cut out waste. Bottled water in regions with safe reticulated water comes to mind as well as the vitamin & other alternative medicine industries for instance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood luck with the rain or water for your hose in the desert regions favored for large scale solar installations. I have lived in desert regions. After one particular dust storm, the paint on the windward side of my truck was sandblasted back to bare metal. Not a single speck of paint to be seen. The glass on that side was completely frosted & could not be seen through. Doesn’t matter with green schemes though. Only tax payer’s money & think of the employment for the water tank drivers & mop brigade. Bit difficult finding labor prepared to live in these regions though.
Some interesting, thoughtful comments. No-one has ever been able to answer my Q.... Has Greenland warmed up enough yet that Erik the Red could re-colonize there??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile everyone is talking about warming, I have read that Chile has just had it's COLDEST winter on record. Now NE is having many cold/snow records broken. A dichotomy
LED light bulbs will soon be here. Already here in the DR, the prices are about the same as fluorescent.
This is a well written and interesting article. I am just not sure why the comments have centered on AGW vs Non-AGW. The article states that the drought started in the 80's and the rains returned in 1994. I have visited this part of the sahara and this change in behavior was way overdue. As stated in the article, the locals clearcut any trees, also their herds ate anything that did try to grow. Ownership makes people take responsibility for their action and pride in the results. The areal maps are stunning to say the least so maybe some of the other countries will take notice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article was reasonable except that it blamed global warming for the drought. This AGW movement has been taken up with such religious fervour that it does not matter which way the inherently variable weather goes, it is a matter of heads I win & tails you lose with the faithful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt that poor farming practices in many places contribute to land degradation & it can be turned around by better practices.
How do you recolcile such claims with hockey sticks :). Maybe the famous hockey stick was for ice hockey? While you are at it, how come the small section of west Antarctia that has had some warming, gets frequent mention yet the cooling vast majority of this huge continent barely gets a mention?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the below concerning Antarctic sea ice expansion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/another_ipcc_error_antarctic_sea_ice_increase_underestimated_by_50/
Relates to your post #20
Great article. It's nice to read good news occasionally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Postman1. I did not have that report in my file. The great pity is that reports such as this do not get the same attention as the AGW doomsday views. Of course we need to take care of our environment. My argument is with those who should know better only promoting one side of the evidence in turn leading to wasted billions that could be used to genuinely improve the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven in things that at first glance look to be good such as the promotion of bio-fuels that have disastrous consequences. Here in Australia the conservative side of government is nearly as susceptible to the clamor of the devotees & have banned incandescent light bulbs. Turns out the alternatives, apart from not giving as satisfactory lighting, contain mercury & when accidentally broken cause a genuine but hidden danger. Of course they are produced in China. What working conditions for those manufacturing them apply? Probably a similar level of safety as in their coal mines that claim thousands of lives each year. Unfortunately, for the so called Green promoters of these things, it is out of site out of mind. I could give numerous other instances.
"If the movement is so convinced of the evils of carbon dioxide, why is nuclear power not enthusiastically embraced."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power isn't enthusiastically embraced because the economics of nuclear power are unfavorable compared to gas and coal-fired power plants that don't do carbon capture and storage. I recommend Chapter 9 (COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS — WHAT WENT WRONG?) of the Nuclear Energy Option by Professor Emeritus Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburg.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
What went wrong is that nuclear power plants in the US and abroad were made non-competitive in the 1980s by regulatory ratcheting and uncontrolled labor cost escalation, including engineering and construction management.
"Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuels for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the economics of nuclear power are outstanding."
"OECD black coal plants were costed at $807-2,719/kW, those with carbon capture and compression (tabulated as CCS, but the cost not including storage) at $3,223-5,811/kW, brown coal $1,802-3,485, gas plants $635-1,747/kW and onshore wind capacity $1,821-3,716/kW."
"(Overnight costs were defined here as EPC, owner's costs and contingency, but excluding interest during construction.)"
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
Notice the overnight costs for black and brown coal-fired plants with carbon capture are higher than the overnight costs ($1,556/kW for the APR-1400 in South Korea, $1,748/kW for a CPR-1000 and $2,302/kW for a Westinghouse AP1000 in China.
Nuclear power plants are more costly to build than coal-fired plants, but a greater part of the cost of coal-fired electricity is due to fuel. Prof. Cohen believes fuel for nuclear power plants can be supplied by breeder reactors.
So, nuclear power isn't embraced becuse they are relatively costly to build and many coal-fired power plants are still permitted to emit vast amounts of CO2 without significant economic repercussions.
Excellent appraisal of the position. I worked in a uranium mine back in the 60s. At that time , China had started testing nuclear weapons. I am convinced that much of the left wing union opposition to nuclear at that time was to aid the Communist countries in catching up & even surpassing the West. Prior to going to the uranium mine I worked in a meat packing plant. the very day the union delegates called a stop work meeting to report on their recent return from China, denouncing The United States for nuclear testing, China exploded an atmospheric nuclear test. Had I raised my head it would have been kicked in. I was amazed at the time by the union gall. Many of the workers had only recently returned from the Korean war yet they said nothing. Logic has next to nothing to do with the opposition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of Cohen's points was that US nuclear engineering and construction management got out of hand in the 80s. What he did not say and seemed interested to learn was that Chinese construction of a Chinese version of the Westinghouse AP1000 might reduce the overnight construction cost to something less than $2,000 /kW. That would be less in many cases to the overnight cost of new coal-fired plants and, of course, a breeder reactor would eat a coal-fired plant's lunch on fuel costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoincidentally, I read something tonight about Asian medical systems manufacturers designing and building medical testing systems for a fraction (20% or so) of the cost / price of US-made medical testing systems. Doing so, and retaining or improving functional efficiency should have been a normal part US systems development over time, but so long as our health insurance cartel called the shots on reasonable and customary reimbursement, our designers and manufacturers had no incentive to make cheaper machines.
Looks like that time of arrested development is over in more ways than one.
One of Cohen's points was that US nuclear engineering and construction management got out of hand in the 80s. What he did not say and seemed interested to learn was that Chinese construction of a Chinese version of the Westinghouse AP1000 might reduce the overnight construction cost to something less than $2,000 /kW. That would be less in many cases to the overnight cost of new coal-fired plants and, of course, a breeder reactor would eat a coal-fired plant's lunch on fuel costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoincidentally, I read something tonight about Asian medical systems manufacturers designing and building medical testing systems for a fraction (20% or so) of the cost / price of US-made medical testing systems. Doing so, and retaining or improving functional efficiency should have been a normal part US systems development over time, but so long as our health insurance cartel called the shots on reasonable and customary reimbursement, our designers and manufacturers had no incentive to make cheaper machines.
Looks like that time of arrested development is over in more ways than one.
I will add this as an afterthought, though it is probably more pertinent to the climate / agricultural recovery of the Sahel than an AP1000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore than twenty years ago, I was working as a project manager in Czechoslovakia, trying to do soil remediation at former Soviet airfields. We were hooked up to a local firm called IGHP. One day, I went to see a guy in Bratislava who drilled water wells. He turned out to be quite a character and was happy to regale me with stories about his career in water well-drilling in different parts of the world. His colleagues called him "The Elephant Man", and after a while, he told me why.
Mainly, he loved African elephants and had done what he could do to keep them in business. He explained that turned out to be related to water-well drilling and desertification at the southern margins of the Sahel. As I recall, he said one effect of drilling water wells was to lower the water table over time. (That made sense to me). Most of the trees in the area where he was drilling water wells were a certain type that had deep tap roots into groundwater. Therefore, some time after he drilled a water well and water production lowered the water table, the tap roots would not longer reach the ground water and the trees would die. Therefore, drilling water wells at the Southern margin of the Sahel caused it to advance some miles to the south.
I don't know much more than that. Don't know exactly where he was or the extent of his drilling range, but his story seemed to resonate with the story of the guy who dug holes and seeded them with manure. Same kind of causal relataionship, but different results. Maybe something worth taking into account.
Facinating. Unintended consequences often come back to bite us unfortunately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI support global warming - not the theory, but actually having a warmer planet. I support vastly expanding atmospheric CO2 because it leads to much more abundant plant growth. Methane concerns me, not because of GHG impact but because if a huge cloud of it bubbles up, it could kill off a huge area of oxygen breathing surface life such as humans. As a GHG methane is short lived and breaks down quickly. As a deadly poison that short life is too much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the sea level rising:
First off, most supposed evidence of sea level increase is directly attributable to erosion and crustal plate movement. There is little to no valid evidence of ice melting causing ocean levels to rise because as some areas of land based glacier melt off, other areas of glacier grow significantly.
Secondly, I live 2,000 feet above current sea level. We grow a substantial part of the national and global food supplies. The cost of living here is higher than the coasts but the pay is about 10% lower. Y'all are free to come join us but if you are stupid enough to live below sea level or storm surge level then don't expect my sympathy when you die. If the oceans rise a couple of hundred feet then my property values rise and I don't have to drive as far for vacation. No one on the coast is trying to help me earn more money or live more cheaply. When Katrina devastated the gulf coast we sent people to help. I have yet to see a crew from any of the coasts come help after a tornado destroys a town.
Most of this ecological damage is the result of human stupidity and natural human resilience will fix it as the stupid die off or lose power. The Sahel is turning green again where bad policies are eliminated. Reforestation of Brasil is happening. I believe that a major population collapse will happen. It is quite clear that only in places such as Haiti where babies are cranked out in excess of the areas ability to support them will that mass die off hit. The rest of the world will have a gradual adjustment that brings population densities back into reasonably sustainable levels.
I'm curious as to the logic behind the rule that 'took away' the ownership of trees from farmers. It is stated here as some colonial folly. Can it really be that simple?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it not have something to do with the way land is owned in africa, often more by the community of a village than by a person, as e.g. in Europe? That system might have made sense in a past with much lower populations. A division of activities between nomadic cattle owners, others planting crops, again others exploiting the trees, or hunting? I read that big Baobab trees often have 'owners', also if they grow on public/common land. Many of these age old traditions must now be adapted to modern population densities. Great news to hear that such a 'simple' adaptation can have apparently such a massive effect. .. or has the Sahel just been blessed with a good run of years with more rain?
I agree .. most of these comments are completely off the mark. This is an interesting article, so let's concentrate on its content. It is not about global warming, nuclear energy, communism. It is however an example of how a relatively small change in behaviour can have large effects, especially with our modern population densities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLessons learned:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGovernment control of resources often leads people to do things against their best interest. Conversely, restoring property rights improves the environment.
Global warming in Africa is caused by deforestation and overpopulation in a given region.
It seems various people around the world are thinking along similar lines. In a semi-arid region of Western Australia, innovative methods have been developed for undertaking sustainable forestry oh highly impoverished soils - without the use of any chemical weed-control, fertilisers or irrigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTraditionally trees are planted in 'the wet season' winter, but using the techniques that have been developed, trees are planted well into summer. Survival and growth rates are outstanding.
The methodologies are logical and easily and readily implemented at low cost.
The basic concept is based on supplying sufficient moisture to a seedling when it is planted it, and ensuring it is not lost due to evaporation, to sustain it until its roots reach moisture deep within the soil.
This is as simply as immersing the seedlings in water, immediately prior to planting, so their root-balls are fully saturated with water, then planting the exceptionally deep, so the dry soil insulates the root-balls from the desiccating effects of heat, wind and low humidity.
With few leaves exposed to the atmosphere, transpiration rates are reduced to a minimum.
Another aspect of the research is to capitalise upon the symbiotic relationships that exist between different plant species, many of which have crop-value - eliminating the need for fertilisers.
Successful plantings have been undertaken when temperatures have risen to well in excess of 38degC [100degF] and as high as 50deg C - and humidity has been as low as 2%. The latter normally brings on virtually instant death for newly planted tree seedlings.
Rainfall is normally in the order of 330mm/annum on the research property, but in 2010 it was 154.5mm.
Readers might care to learn more about 'The Auria Project' that aims to address numerous environmental problems that have resulted from inappropriate agricultural practices - global warming, diminishing rainfall, salinity, water and wind erosion, flooding, water logging, reduced air quality, loss of biodiversity and habitat etc. For more information visit <www.auria.net.au> The project was a finalist in the 2009, United Nations Association of Australia, 'World Environment Day Awards'.
This is just permaculture isn't it? Like many gardneners we have been practising a variant on this for years. The whole concept of plant symbiosis, with various levels of growth, and using each other's shade and potential to add humus or nitrogen to the soil, is the most productive way of farming that there is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeoff Lawton and Bill Mollison have worked through an agricultural methodology similar to this: permaculture, in which trees (not necessarily fruit-bearing), water harvesting, mulching, etc. contribute to land stewardship and/or re-greening. It surprising to me to note that such a successful form of agriculture comes as a surprise to the Scientific American community. Very worth watching is Lawton's similar progress in Jordan with a project there to green the desert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the 1970's I have a newspaper clipping showing a map of Africa almost equally divided between military interests of colonial and communist superpowers. Local people are finally taking overgrazing and deforestation back into their own hands. Water and electricity are tools, and when used wisely, need not be used in the disproportionate quantities professed by many lobbyists. Fuel hungry rapid transit is a tougher challenge to solve for those not acquainted with "just in time" logistics and planning for long range survival where population numbers permit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no gainsaying that trees and grasses help reduce greenhouse grasses by being alive and healthy, and that our use of hydrocarbon-based fuels is adding to our (both man,animal and natural) discomfort: thousands of flights daily,cars spewing CO2 and other oxides,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfactories and other production plants duplicating the
actions: the accelerated use of alternative ,renewable energy cannot be oversated.It is high time!
Conservationist.
Nichol,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy understanding is that colonial governments in Africa and Asia needed timber for shipbuilding and railways, so they would remove 'native' villagers' property rights on trees. Post-colonial governments continued the rules for similar reasons, but also to reserve timber for big businesses. If the farmers had fought for restoring forestry and tree-ownership rights, maybe the rules would have changed sooner, but generations of no memory of having trees probably prevented them realising what they were missing.