CLICK THE LINK FOR THE FULL TEXT!
Famed climate scientist has a new, dire prediction
Some scientists question the new study, which asserts that Earth is warming faster than previously estimated
By Kasha Patel and Shannon Osaka
November 2, 2023 at 3:32 p.m. EDT
National Disaster Response Force personnel distribute relief material to flood victims stuck in a low-lying area around the river Yamuna in New Delhi in July. (Manish Swarup/AP)
Thirty-five years ago, NASA climate scientist James Hansen stood in front of Congress with a bold declaration: Humans are causing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s changing our climate. Some scoffed, but, in the decades that followed, people saw how prescient this warning was.
On Thursday, Hansen and colleagues across the world released a studywith another serious, though controversial, finding. Climate change will catapult global temperatures into crisis territory earlier than previously thought, the scientists said, warning that Earth is already nearing average temperatures more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial norms. Their alarming prediction — that the pace of Earth’s warming is accelerating — stirred some disagreement within the climate community.
“The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail,” Hansen, now a director at the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said in a call with reporters Thursday. “In the next several months, we’re going to go well above 1.5C [Celsius] on a 12-month average. ... For the rest of this decade, the average is going to be at least 1.5.”
Since the preindustrial era, Earth has warmed around 1.2 degrees Celsius. But recently, temperatures have spiked beyond that. Some summer months in 2023 have registered global average temperatures 1.5 to 1.6 degrees hotter than the average before the widespread use of fossil fuels.
While 1.5 degrees isn’t a magical tipping point for Earth’s demise, the United Nations has warned of severe and potentially irreversible consequences above that level. Many staple crops wouldn’t be able to grow in such warmth. Even the best water conservation practices wouldn’t combat the projected droughts.
Scientists have long disagreed on exactly how much global temperatures will rise with additional atmospheric carbon dioxide. An early study in 1979 estimated that doubling carbon dioxide in the air would cause global increases of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. More recently, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculated that the Earth could warm by 3 degrees with a doubling of CO2.
But those may be underestimations, the new study found. Hansen and his colleagues analyzed paleoclimate data and the Earth’s energy imbalance to estimate that doubling carbon dioxide could lead to a whopping 4.8 degrees of warming compared with the preindustrial era.
Under the current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions, they predicted that the 1.5-degree benchmark will be passed in the 2020s, and 2 degrees of warming will be passed before 2050 — a markedly faster rate than the prognosis from other scientists. In its most recent landmark climate report, the United Nations stated global temperatures would reach the 1.5-degree mark in the early 2030s.
Hansen and his co-authors attribute the rapid warming pace partly to a reduction in aerosols — or particles of pollution in the atmosphere. Some types of pollution reflect the sun’s rays, cooling the planet; as countries clean up their energy systems, cutting down on that pollution can counterintuitively create a warming effect. The new paper suggests that cutting pollution from marine shipping may be causing the Earth to absorb more solar radiation.
The team estimated a global warming rate of 0.18 degrees per decade from 1970 to 2010, but the scientists say the pace will increase to at least 0.27 degrees per decade during the next few decades
“The two-degree limit can only be rescued with the help of purposeful actions to affect Earth’s energy balance,” said Hansen at the news conference. “We will need to cool off Earth to save our coastlines, coastal cities worldwide and lowlands while also addressing the other problems caused by global warming.”
Not everyone agrees with the new study. Michael Mann, a professor of earth science at the University of Pennsylvania, posted a lengthy critiqueof the paper on his personal website.
“The standard is high when you’re challenging scientific understanding,” Mann wrote. “And I don’t think they’ve met that standard, by a longshot.”
Mann argued that the ocean’s heat content is growing steadily, but — in contrast to Hansen and his co-authors — is not accelerating. Mann also cited data showing that there does not appear to be a sudden shift in pollution from aerosols over the past few years. Other researchers have found that a decline in aerosol pollution from cleaning up shipping would only shift global temperatures by 0.05 or 0.06 Celsius.
“While I hold James Hansen to be one of the most (if not the most) important contributors to our modern scientific understanding of human-caused climate change, I feel that this latest contribution from Jim and his co-authors is at best unconvincing,” Mann wrote.
The new study also suggests a path forward for policy — an unusual move for most scientific papers. For decades, scientists have avoided providing any policy prescriptions for dealing with the problem of climate change, preferring to stick to science and data. But in recent years, that has begun to change.
Hansen and colleagues call for a rising price or tax on carbon emissions, subsidies for renewables and nuclear power, and global cooperation on climate goals. They also suggest further research into solar geoengineering, a technique that could cool the planet by injecting particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s light.
In the press call, Hansen also called for further political action from young people and others galvanized by the overheating planet.
“I believe a political party that takes no money from special interests is probably an essential part of the solution,” he said. “Young people should not underestimate their political power.”
Worthy's Operation Appleseed
Back in 2020, Roger Worthington, owner of Worthy Brewing and President of the Worthy Garden Club started Operation Appleseed — an initiative to plant one million trees in forests across Oregon that had been impacted by wildfire. In 2022, that initiative ended.
Since that time we’ve received a number of questions about the status of “Appleseed” and why we chose to end the effort before reaching the goal of one million trees.
The original objective was to maximize carbon storage in forests as one method of addressing a rapidly changing climate. Although Appleseed was one method of addressing climate concerns, a greater understanding of climate science shifted our focus. The following discussing summarizes the decision. It was written to answer a question from the New York Times during their review of an opinion piece Roger submitted for publication. Enjoy.
Carbon capture is directly related to biomass production — growth rate — both above and below ground. Young trees do absorb carbon at a rapid rate through photosynthesis, the process of converting sunlight, water, and carbon into biomass. The growth rate of older trees slows much like metabolic rates in humans, but the greater mass of large trees stores more carbon than younger trees. As trees age, they become net carbon sinks. But that’s not only because they’re larger, it’s because they are key elements in a functional ecosystem. Mature trees store huge amounts of carbon above ground, but also store incredible amounts in roots. They also store carbon in soils; carbon that gets converted to various oxides, ammonia, and methane through the activities of soil biotic communities. Those products are released through soil respiration as additional greenhouse gases. The balance between soil respiration and the amount of carbon stored in trees is where the old and mature forests exhibit the greatest benefit to mitigating climate change.
Simply stated, mature trees store more carbon than is lost through soil respiration. Young trees do capture carbon, but the amount they store is less than what is released through soil respiration, which results in young forests being a net source instead of a sink. Recent research that Roger has referenced indicates that it takes a minimum of 40 years (and probably more depending on species and growth rate — another long discussion) before a balance between carbon capture and soil respiration is achieved.
The timeline is also affected by disturbance. Life cycle analyses of logging operations have shown that harvest releases more carbon than what is captured in wood products. This is caused by everything from the energy release from diesel trucks and chainsaws to burning slash piles in yards (areas where logs are stored and loaded onto trucks). But a primary cause of decreased carbon storage is the increase in soil fluxes related to disturbance and activity levels of soil microbes. The higher soil temperatures and increased water availability (decreased density of vegetation) common in harvest areas stimulates microbial activity and increases releases of the greenhouse gases mentioned earlier. This doesn’t happen in mature and old forests that don’t experience those disturbances. So the harvest of a forest not only changes the carbon cycle in the unit, but the logging itself is another net source of atmospheric carbon. And burn areas are typically “salvage logged” to collect the marketable dead timber.
Roger’s realization that supporting tree planting in areas impacted through fire doesn’t meet his objective of increasing carbon sequestration is largely because of the Forest Service’s reluctance to ensure new forests will be allowed to reach that equilibrium. Without that assurance, it makes more sense to spend the effort on protecting mature and old trees and biodiverse functional forest systems.
So back to your question. Young trees can help reduce atmospheric carbon, but young forests aren’t really that good at storing carbon. And we simply don’t have the time to wait until young forests reach the balance between carbon capture and release.
Worthy Garden Club Funds Critical Climate Change Research
February 18, 2022
TO: All media /friends
Protecting The Earth’s Lungs:
Worthy Garden Club Grants $100,000 to Forest Saving Research by Oregon State University’s Dr. Beverly Law
BEND, OR. The Worthy Garden Club announced today that is has granted $100,000 to Dr. Beverly E. Law, Professor Emeritus at Oregon State University to complete essential forest carbon research as part a larger effort addressing urgent issues in climate change. The preservation and conservation of mature forests in Oregon will serve as a primary tool to mitigate increases in atmospheric carbon, and this gift will support Dr. Law’s research on regional carbon emissions and the potential of Oregon’s forests to capture and store large quantities of carbon on both public and private land.
In previous work, Dr. Law has shown that reducing timber harvests by half on public lands and doubling currentharvest cycles on private lands from 40 to 80 years will substantially reduce carbon emissions and increase carbon capture and storage in trees and root systems. She and others have shown that if Oregon forests areallowed to grow to maturity, they could double the amount of carbon stored in tree biomass.
“Dr. Law has distinguished herself as the world’s leading scientist on common sense strategies for capturing and storing carbon in Western forests,” said Roger Worthington, President of the Worthy Garden Club. “Her work will also help us pinpoint which private and public lands in Oregon have the best potential for mitigating climate change.”
The timing is right. We need to reduce CO2 emissions 45% by 2030 to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. To prevent the most serious consequences of climate change, removals of atmospheric carbon dioxide must equal additions no later than 2050, and must not exceed emissions after that. A U.N. report synthesized global climate action plans and found that given the climate pledges submitted so far, greenhouse gases will increase 16% from 2010 to 2030, suggesting that the planned emissions reductions and increased removals from the atmosphere by forests need to be more aggressive.
Governments worldwide have pledged to protect 30% of lands and waters by 2030 and 50% by 2050 for both climate mitigation and biodiversity. To reach these lofty goals and prevent a worsening climate catastrophe, we need workable solutions to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon that don’t rely on pie-in-the-sky technologies.
Dr. Law has shown that the Pacific Northwest has a large amount of forest area that should be high priority for protection by 2030 and 2050. PNW forests have been shown to have an equal or greater potential for carbon storage as the Amazon Rain Forest. Yet, Oregon has the lowest percentage of its forest area permanently protected among the eleven western US states (10%).
“It's not well known that the timber industry is a major source of carbon pollution, ranking higher than transportation, agriculture, commercial and industrial sources,” said Rick Martinson, the WGC’s executive director. “Selective harvesting, longer rotations, allowing slash to decompose naturally, and smart reforestation can all significantly reduce global warming.
“We need our elected officials, oversight agencies, and the public to understand the critical need to develop responsible management methods that protect the public resource, address climate change, and provide a truly sustainable supply of timber. It’s not easy, but recognizing the issue and working to find a balance between the public need, climate considerations, and industry viability is essential to meeting today’s needs while preserving the ability of future generations to live in a healthy and vital economy.”
The science is sobering. In the last 100 years, Oregon has removed the equivalent of all live trees in the Coast range forests, returned 65% of the carbon contained in biomass to the atmosphere and transferred 16% to landfills. Furthermore, in Oregon harvest-related emissions are many times greater than those from wildfires.
The WGC grant will allow Dr. Law to rank forests within each ecological region of Oregon according to their capacity for carbon storage and biodiversity. Further, the research will help us identify the potential for protection on different forest ownerships, including public, private and tribal.
“We are pushing ecosystems to the point where they may not recover unless we take aggressive actions to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases and protect plants and animals and the rich natural reservoirs of carbon,” Law said.
Dr. Law’s 30 years of research includes the effects of climate, wildfire and management on forest carbon and water processes, forest carbon accounting, and land-use strategies to mitigate climate change and protect biodiversity. She has over 250 refereed journal articles and reports. Her work has been recognized in the top 1% for most citations globally in the past decade. She is also a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the Earth Leadership Program.
“We are immensely grateful for Roger’s vision and support,” said Dr. Law. “The gift will allow us to focus on natural climate solutions that increase the carbon reservoirs in forests while protecting biodiversity and drinking water in the region.”
To find out more about the Worthy Garden Club’s efforts addressing biodiversity and climate change issues, contact Dr. Rick Martinson, Executive Director at 541-639-4776 ext. 221 or Rick@worthygardenclub.com.
Oregon's mature forests capture and store significant volumes of carbon dioxide, helping to mitigate the effects of climate change. In addition, these dense, multi-storied forests provide outstanding habitat values, biodiversity, and protect water quality for all residents of the state. Photo credit: Oregon State University
Timber harvests release significant amounts of carbon, destroy soil structure, create erosion, and destroy wildlife habitat. The amount of carbon released through timber harvesting has been shown to exceed all other sources. Photo credit: OregonWild
A VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION OF BIODIVERISTY IN URBAN LANDSCAPES
A VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION OF BIODIVERISTY IN URBAN LANDSCAPES
Biodiversity is a key component of landscapes based on ecological principles. The definition of biodiversity is often elusive and debatable, and includes both quantitative and qualitative measurements. The term originated from the Greek bios, meaning life, and diversity, which has been characterized as 1) the number of different types of items (richness), 2) the number of different types of items and their relative abundance (evenness), and 3) variety (vaguely defined as the class to which the diversity belongs).
Table 1 lists selected definitions of biodiversity from the least inclusive to the most inclusive based on a set of common components and processes referenced from 1976 to 1996 (DeLong 1996). All components listed have been characterized by different authors on the basis of Richness (the number of different types of items - e.g. species, communities - within an area), and Evenness (the relative abundance of different types of items in an area).
Allaby (2010) defines biodiversity as a portmanteau used to describe all aspects of biological diversity, especially species richness, ecosystem complexity, and genetic variation. In this definition the debatable inclusion of abiotic structure and processes is implied by the use of the term ecosystem complexity. Some authors argue the appropriate term when including abiotic components is Ecological Diversity - not Biodiversity. The main point in the argument is that the term Biological (bio/bios) refers only to biotic elements and does not include the non-living portions of a landscape (defined here in a broader sense than merely urban landscapes).
Noss (1990) identified three main attributes of biodiversity that, I think, apply to urban systems: composition, structure, and function. Composition refers to the richness of biotic components and the relative abundance of each in an area. Structure addresses the vertical and horizontal elements of a community or landscape, and the organizational levels (guilds or functional groups) of plant and animal populations. Function includes processes such as herbivory, predation, parasitism, mortality, production, and energy flow through biotic communities. These processes are typically addressed in terms of the identity and number of different types of processes as well as the rate at which each process operates. Noss’ definition applies only to biotic components and does not consider abiotic elements as part of biodiversity, although he later argues the importance of including abiotic components in the definition because of their role supporting biotic communities.
The debate continues. The term biodiversity is often used indiscriminately as a reference to the variety of life in an area. Increasing biodiversity, in this sense, normally refers to an increase in species richness, rarely addressing structural or functional diversity directly. A clear decision on whether or not to include abiotic components or human influences as an element of biodiversity is also commonly avoided.
Dasmann (1991) includes human influences in his definition of biodiversity: “The term biodiversity refers to the totality of species, populations, communities, and ecosystems, both wild and domesticated, that constitute the life of any one area or the entire planet… it specifically includes cultural modifications of the natural world.” I find two interesting points about this definition. First, Dasmann includes ecosystems in his definition of biodiversity, implying inclusion of abiotic components. Secondly, he argues results of human action, while affecting biodiversity, are integral to functional systems (ecosystems). Human actions are inherently a part of urban environments.
As we’ve seen, a universally accepted definition of biodiversity doesn’t seem to exist. Although debates continue about abiotic and biotic components, and whether human influences play a role in defining biodiversity, the practical definition in this field, and the commonly used meaning of the term, refers to richness; simply the number of different types of items. In our case, that normally means the number of different types of plants.
That definition raises another question! Are we simply talking about the number of different species in a constructed landscape, or are we talking about diversity in species, functional groups, and structural characteristics? How about intra-species genetic diversity? What do we really mean when we say that biodiversity is important in created urban landscapes? Why is it important?
Disturbance
A major factor affecting biodiversity in urban settings is disturbance. In ecological theory, disturbance can either permanently change the biotic community, or provide an opportunity for renewal. Extreme disturbance events generally permanently change the community, affecting both above-ground and below-ground processes and communities. Since human activities have affected many natural processes and introduced many non-native species over the past century, severe disturbance increases susceptibility to colonization by invasive species (invasibility) and often permanently alters ecological succession of the site.
Disturbance is common in urban development. This photo is of a development area in Bend Oregon where a natural juniper scrub plant association was destroyed, rock ridges were removed and crushed into gravel, the site is being leveled, and apartment complexes are being built. Ecologically, this qualifies as an extreme disturbance.
Many years ago I was fortunate enough to be able to spend some time in the blast zone at Mount St Helens in Washington state. It was only a few years after the eruption and we were able to see the extent of destruction and disturbance from that major event. The disturbance at the construction site in this photo is on par or exceeds levels of disturbance I witnessed at Mount St. Helens. Both biotic and abiotic components of both landscapes have been highly modified.
St. Helens removed vegetation, destroyed geographic features, altered hydrologic systems, displaced native wildlife, negatively affected soil biota, and completely changed the physical appearance of the area. The disturbance evident in this photo is essentially the same, just on a smaller scale.
If we think of biodiversity and its importance in ecological function, how can we assess effects urban development has on these processes, and at what scale do we make those assessments? How does urban development affect biodiversity on local, regional, statewide, national, global, or cosmic scales? Does development tend to increase species diversity as some people argue, or does development generally lead to homogenization of biological systems, and at what scale?
Part of the work in ecology based landscaping is trying to address those questions in a very practical manner. When working on a project, how does your work affect biodiversity of the individual property and how does that translate to a larger scale? How does your project affect ecological function, including biodiversity, in the neighborhood, municipality, region (thinking ecoregion instead of political boundaries), and physiographic region (e.g. the Northwest, or Southwest, or anywhere else that’s identified physiographically).
Another question from the practical application of these ideas is: Are we really doing the right thing by trying to design replacement ecosystems within urban environments? Are we causing problems for the future (temporal scale)? These are valid questions without a clear answer. Or do we just try to do the best we can and hope we’re smart enough to design something that will actually work?
Now I’m rambling, but these are questions we discuss as a company doing this type of work. I get great pleasure from hearing my crew discuss these questions while eating lunch under a tree. Since this is a fairly new field, these debates are incredibly valuable.
References cited:
Allaby, Michael. 2010. Oxford Dictionary of Ecology; 4th ed. Oxford University Press.
Dasmann, R.F. 1991. The importance of cultural and biological diversity. In: M.L. Oldfied and J.B. Alcorn, eds. Biodiversity, culture, conservation, and ecodevelopment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
DeLong, Don Jr. 1996. Defining Biodiversity. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(4). 738-749.
Noss, Reed F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4(4). 355-364.
OSU Encourages Gardening with Native Plants: From the Corvallis Advocate
As you look back at last year’s garden and begin to plan next year’s, consider the benefits of native plants.
“There’s a new aesthetic,” said Weston Miller, horticulturist with Oregon State University’s Extension Service. “Gardeners want to connect to nature and the heritage of plants that grow in the Pacific Northwest.”
Part of the draw is the correlation between native plants and pollinators. A native garden translates into nirvana for bees, birds, butterflies and other beneficial critters.
“The habitat value is really high,” Miller noted. “Native pollinators are accustomed to native plants and are more likely to be attracted to them.”
But even with natives, you’ve got to think about the right plant for the right place, he said. If you plant a sun-loving plant in the shade or vice versa, it’s not going to make it. For instance, plants that grow in the shade of the forest – such as salal and evergreen huckleberry – don’t want the full-sun, prairie conditions required by camas and meadow checkerbloom.
Sun- or shade-loving plants native to the Northwest will thrive in our wet winters and dry summers given the correct soil, water and sun exposure. If satisfied with their situation, these plants will reward you with a low-maintenance attitude.
If you wonder what exactly native means, Miller suggests thinking of the area west of the Cascades if you live in western Oregon, and east of the Cascades if you live in eastern Oregon since the climates are so different.
For a list of native plants suitable for gardens west of the Cascades, refer to Gardening with Oregon Native Plants West of the Cascades or Native Plants for Willamette Valley Yards, a booklet produced by Metro in partnership with OSU Extension and other collaborators.
For a list of native plants suitable for gardens east of the Cascades, refer to Selecting Native Plants for Home Landscape in Central Oregon.
Miller acknowledges that some native plants can look out of place in manicured gardens, but he urges people to use them at the back of a border or to create an area in the garden dedicated to natives. However, many natives such as Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), which blooms a glorious yellow in early spring, act beautifully as specimens planted front and center. Another candidate for the spotlight is the justifiably popular vine maple (Acer circinatum) with its graceful, multi-trunked form and colorful fall presence.
“Oregon grape is just an awesome harbinger of spring,” Miller said. “Vine maples are also very high on my list. They attract beneficial insects in a big way and can be used as small trees or kept pruned smaller as large shrubs.”
For back-of-the-border situations, Miller recommends oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), a large shrub with frothy sprays of white flowers in spring. Another plant that works best in the back is elderberry, either red (Sambucus racemosa) or blue (S. caerulea).
“If you’re looking for some height, blue elderberries are a good option,” he said. “Birds love the berries, and the blueberries are edible for humans, too.”
When it comes to bulbs, Miller speaks highly of Pacific Northwest iris (Iris tenax), a diminutive iris with flowers in the purple and blue range with white and yellow throats (called signals). He also likes tiger lilies (Lilium columbianum), which have freckled orange or yellow flowers hanging face down with petals curved up. Of course, his list wouldn’t be complete, he said, without the tall, blue-blooming camas (Camassia quamash), which was a food mainstay for Willamette Valley Native Americans.
For perennials, Miller is a fan of dainty, pink-flowering Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa), which can be a bit enthusiastic so should be planted where you don’t mind it running free. He’s also fond of the hummingbird magnet Western columbine (Aquilegia formosa), perky Oregon sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum), pink meadow checkerbloom (Sidalcea campestris) and the useful coastal strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis), which is an easy-going ground cover with berries for wildlife.
All of these plants can be put in the ground in spring.
He offers these instructions: Dig a hole about 2 feet by 2 feet for a 1-gallon pot or 3 to 4 feet for a 5-gallon pot. Replace enough soil so that the plant crown is level with the top of the hole. Fill in and water.
No need to fertilize because you’ve amended the soil and natives don’t typically need much fertilizer. Water regularly through the first spring and summer to get the plants established.
Water Crisis Puts Oregon Community At A Crossroads: by NPR news
In a desert far from any city, farmers use groundwater to grow lush green hay. The hay fattens livestock all over the world. But there’s a big problem: The water is drying up. Now scientists warn it will take thousands of years for an aquifer in southeastern Oregon to recover, while residents there are already hurting.
At Marjorie and John Thelen’s house, the well ran dry in 2015.
“We’re not ranchers. We’re not growing hay. We’re just retired in the country,” said 72-year-old Marjorie Thelen, who moved to Oregon with her husband, John, 12 years ago.
Impressed by the mountain views and the rambling sagebrush, they bought a modest house to spend the rest of their days in Harney County, Ore. Then, hay farming boomed around them.
“It was like a gold rush,” said 78-year-old John Thelen, describing how more giant steel sprinklers arrived after a state agency warned of water scarcity in 2016. He dreads the growing season: “It’s like having your arteries cut open and watching the blood run out, when your water is being sprayed to the wind and it’s evaporating away at humongous quantities.”
Like most people in this high, dry valley, the couple gets drinking water out of the ground. When their first well failed, they paid thousands of dollars to drill deeper, only to find high levels of arsenic in the groundwater there. Now, their kitchen is cluttered with plastic bottles. A cup of tea starts with a towering filtration system.
The Thelens say enough is enough: that it’s time for large-scale agriculture in the desert to end.
Meanwhile, Harney County commissioner and hay farmer Mark Owens says gradual and voluntary conservation is critical for the region’s overall economic health. He argues that farms aren’t the final destination for the water.
“I use a lot of water, but the crops that I raise go to Tillamook to produce the milk in the ice cream that you eat or the grains to feed the beef that you eat,” Owens said.
He points out that without farming, the local tax base would collapse, taking schools, roads, libraries and law enforcement with it.
“This issue that’s happening in [the] Harney Basin is going to happen in a community next to you,” he said. “If it’s not, just wait. We have to protect agriculture.”
Aquifer out of balance
Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey just spent three years studying the Harney Basin, mapping an aquifer starkly out of balance. They found powerful wells draining isolated pockets of water much faster than those spaces refill. But historically, lawmakers divvied up groundwater as if it were coming from some giant subterranean ocean that would never run out.
“I’ll give you an example,” explained Todd Jarvis, director of the Institute for Water and Watersheds at Oregon State University. “In 1904, a Texas Supreme Court ruling found that groundwater was so secret, occult and concealed that it was too difficult to legally control it.”
More than a hundred years later, this mindset is slowly changing. Texas now has groundwater conservation districts. California recently became the first state to pass a law requiring sustainable groundwater management. And at an Oregon dinner table, people in conflict are working toward the state’s first-ever voluntary conservation agreement.
The alternative is to shut off water on the basis of seniority, a centuries-old system that farmers warn would plunge the region into a depression.
Common ground
For Brenda Smith of the High Desert Partnership, finding common ground is all about building relationships.
“It’s a thousand cups of coffee,” said the director of the nonprofit that mediates natural resource conflicts in eastern Oregon. Building consensus is slow work, she admits, “but if you’re going to fight about it, we don’t have that time either.”
For the last three years, people in Harney County have been coming together regularly for meals and meetings. They form a circle, where hay farmers like Owens, who want to change slowly, sit across from homeowners like the Thelens, who want decisive action now, before the wells run dry again. The region’s very survival is on the line as this group tries to reach a compromise, before it’s too late.
Copyright 2020 Oregon Public Broadcasting. To see more, visit Oregon Public Broadcasting.
Ecology Based Landscapes... what are they?
What is an ecology based landscape? This is the first question I ask students in my Restoration Horticulture course at Oregon State University. It’s always an interesting assessment of how students view the field before delving into the specifics of the subject. So, what is an ecology based landscape, and how is it different than any other kind of landscape?
First, I need to clarify that we’re talking about urban landscapes – residential or commercial – such as a backyard or development site. Some of the impacts typically associated with these sorts of projects include removing most or all of the existing vegetation, affecting soil structure through compaction, chemical alteration, and destruction of the biotic community in soils, changing hydrologic function (water flow), and altering patterns of wind and solar gain. The result is a site that is completely modified and generally unable to recover naturally. Put simply, construction is a severe disturbance to the ecological function of a site.
This is where landscaping comes in. Conventional landscaping practices attempt to mitigate the impacts of development through constructing a replacement plant community based exclusively on the perceived aesthetics of the home owner or neighborhood association (or other organizations overseeing the appearance of a community). The landscape is designed and completed to compliment the architectural character of the structure, and normally includes both hardscape (pavers, sidewalks, patios, etc.) and vegetation. Plants are chosen for morphological characteristics such as size, shape, or flower color, and are frequently planted in arrangements reflecting the vision of the landscape designer.
Most of the plant material planted in these landscapes are cultivars developed for specific qualities such as flower color, plant size, or consistency. The genetic variability inherent in native plants is generally lost during plant breeding or conventional plant production for the landscaping industry. The lack of genetic diversity in plant material is reflected in an overall lack of diversity in soil biota responsible for supporting plants through nutrient cycling and uptake, improvements to soil structure, and plant-water relationships. As a result, most conventional landscapes become dependent on cycles of fertilizing, watering, and pest management. I like to refer to these types of landscapes as “plants on crack.” Plants become highly dependent on chemical inputs (fertilizers) and water, which further suppresses soil biotic communities and results in a landscape that can survive only with active management.
Conversely, ecology based landscaping is a method designed to re-establish the ecologically functional aspect of natural plant associations. Ecology based design emphasizes stimulating growth of soil biotic populations and maximizing above and below-ground biodiversity. Specific methods and materials vary by site, reflecting environmental states or the historic condition of a specific project location. But every design strives to create a fully functional landscape that doesn’t rely on artificial inputs – a landscape that avoids a negative cycle of addiction.
HOW that’s done is a subject for future posts. The first will be dealing with the broad subject of biodiversity; how the term is defined and how the concept can be incorporated in landscape design and construction. Lots of good stuff coming up!
Interesting read on the polar vortex
Fascinating! Excellent article on another aspect of climate change. Enjoy!
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/19/1820257/-Thirty-Mile-High-Wave-Encircling-Earth-to-Break-over-North-Pole-on-Christmas-Day
Upcoming soil webinar... Looks good!
See you Friday!
View this email in your browser
Regenerating Urban Soils Through Plant Density
Tune in this Friday
12/14 @ 10:00 a.m.
Erik will share his experience and knowledge in designed landscapes, his passion for C-sequestration in urban soils, and his vision that launched the Willamette Valley Regenerative Landscape Coalition.
Webinar Location: https://ornrcs.adobeconnect.com/oshp/
Connection Details
Audio for the webinar will be delivered through your computer so have you headphones or speakers ready. We will use interactive tools through the webinar for discussion and questions.
Have and upcoming Soil Health related event? Let Cory know at cory.owens@or.usda.gov. We will showcase upcoming events during the webinar.
The Insect Apolalypse
This article from the NY Times provides an entertaining, but mildly depressing perspective on the general decline of ecological conditions over time, but specifically how insects are generally overlooked as indicators of ecological degradation. One of the more interesting points made in the article is, I think, the concept of a “Shifting Baseline Syndrome”, the acceptance of current ecological conditions as the norm by each generation, even though those conditions have been declining over time. Makes perfect sense!
Enjoy!
https://nyti.ms/2DMT70v
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalypse.html
Choosing native plant survey summary
Choosing Native Plants
Survey Summary
Rick Martinson
WinterCreek Nursery
Earlier this month we developed a brief survey to assess consumer’s values on consistency in native plant choices. The survey was created primarily in response to a recent article[1] in Hort Technology, a peer reviewed journal from the American Society for Horticultural Science. The article discusses release methods and marketing in the relatively new field of “Nativars”, the selection and propagation of native plants for specific phenotypic characteristics such as flower color, size, growth habit, or for specific qualities such as drought resistance expressed in an individual plant. The goal of these efforts is to expand consumer interest in native plants and increase the attractiveness and use of native plants in home horticulture. The idea is that native plants would be more marketable if they exhibited consistency in shape, color, size, and other features commonly desirable in urban landscapes.
For me, the effort to homogenize the inherent variability in native plant species is troubling. Many native plant landscapes are designed for resource savings, habitat quality, or the resilience of native plant communities. Each of those features depends on the genetic variability of native species. The ability of a landscape to survive and recover from drought, disturbance, disease, or pests is highly dependent on the plasticity of genetic variation, and much of that genetic variation is expressed through phenotypic properties. Propagating plants with the intent to decrease variability reduces the genetic adaptability of a population. This may have long-term consequences on naturally occurring populations of the same species in the same ecological region as the project in which nativars are installed, although literature explicitly addressing the genetic swamping potential of nativars is lacking.
Our survey addresses a more practical consideration; the preferences and values of consumers. It’s unclear if institutions promoting nativars evaluated consumer preference concerning the inconsistencies in native plants, or the reasons people choose native plants as the primary plant type for their landscapes. Those are the questions we targeted in our brief on-line survey.
We developed our survey through SurveyMonkey (surveymonkey.com) and released it on our nursery facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/Wintercreek-Nursery-357840746834/). The survey was “boosted” twice to illicit responses from three levels of separation from WinterCreek Nursery (the survey went to friends of friends of friends of WinterCreek). The survey included six questions about native plants, one question about the respondent’s location, and one open-ended question that allowed people to express additional thoughts. No personal information was gathered. We received a total of 124 responses from Oregon, Washington, California, and Texas.
Generally, consumers choose native plants for their ability to reduce water use, wildlife habitat value, and pollinator habitat value (Figure 1), and value genetic diversity over consistency in phenotypic characteristics (Figure 2). Flower shape, size, and color are less important than mature plant type and size, and consumers tend to choose plants based on apparent health of the plant at the nursery and the type of plant rather than consistency in appearance at maturity (Figure 3). Individual comments submitted throughout the survey suggest consumers have a broad understanding of the value of genetic diversity in native plants but desire more education on the subject, and consider variability an important factor in their choice of native plants as components of home landscapes.
Forty-eight comments were submitted by respondents (Table 1). The comments generally address five primary subjects: resource conservation, maintaining genetic variability, deer resistance, wildlife and pollinator habitat, and availability. These remarks reflect answers to questions in the survey and support survey results that indicate genetic variability in native plants is a desirable characteristic to consumers.
[1]Rupp, et al. 2018. Native and Adapted Plant Introduction for Low-water Landscaping. HortTechnology August 2018 28:431-435; doi:10.21273/HORTTECH04044-18
Figure 1: Responses to question 1: Why do you choose native plants? Columns indicate percentage of responses for each option (N=124). Water conservation and habitat value are rated significantly higher than other options. The high score of Conservation Ethic suggests a broad understanding of environmental values of native plants and their potential to contribute to overall resource conservation; not only water. “Other” responses ranged from valuing genetic diversity to deer resistance.
Figure 2: Weighted averages of responses for four questions ranking effect of consistency in plant characteristics on choice by consumers. Responses were ranked 1 through 5 from “Not at all important” to “Extremely important.” The four questions are: 1) How important is consistency in plant shape when choosing natives for your landscape? 2) How important is consistency in plant size when choosing natives for your landscape? 3) How important is genetic diversity in your decision to use native plants? 4) How important is consistency in flower color when choosing natives for your landscape? Results show that consumers value genetic diversity in native plants more than phenotypic characteristics commonly targeted in nativar propagation. (N=124)
Figure 3: Ranking of desirable plant characteristics by respondents (N=124). Results indicate that the type of plant and the apparent health of nursery stock are significantly more important to consumers than consistency in flower color or the mature shape of a native plant. However, general plant characteristics such as flowering period and mature size are also important considerations when choosing native plants, reflecting aesthetic elements common in urban landscape design.
Table 1: Forty-eight comments submitted by survey respondents. The remarks target five primary subjects: resource conservation, genetic diversity, pollinator and wildlife habitat, deer resistance, and plant availability.
Choosing Native Plants survey
The use of native plants in landscapes is a choice people make for a variety of reasons. But the native plant nursery industry is beginning to question the market value of some characteristics unique to native plants — like variability in size or shape, or the inconsistencies in flower color, or regional differences in seasonality. There is a small movement to provide native plants with consistency in characteristics such as flower size or color, or drought tolerance by selecting individual plants displaying desirable characteristics for propagation.
This brief survey is intended to gain some understanding of customers concerns and preferences when choosing to purchase native plants for their landscapes. All responses will remain anonymous. Results will be summarized and presented in this blog, and may be used in research publications or conference presentations. Thank you for helping with this effort!
Rick Martinson
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C5DXRPN
(You’ll need to copy and paste the address in a browser to open it. I can’t figure out how to make it a hotlink in this format… )
The Future of Landscape Design
The Future of Landscape Design: Water, Climate Change, and Public Perception
By Rick Martinson
We desperately need a wholesale shift in how we perceive, design, and install landscapes. Our industry has the opportunity to help create long-term solutions to effects of climate change and the expected shifts in timing, intensity, and duration of precipitation events. Water availability, use, and waste within the city has become a main focus of the Department of Public Works, and substantial effort is being made by the city and irrigation contractors to increase the efficient application of water through ensuring systems are designed and maintained correctly. However, water use will continue to be a contentious subject throughout the semi-arid west. Meeting future water restrictions will require creativity in how we design and construct landscapes in urban settings. One way to do that is through design and construction of projects based on the ecology of specific site locations.
Ecology based landscape design considers hydrology, soils, plant associations, and underlying geology of a project site. In ecological terms, designs take into consideration the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) aspects of a site and strive to balance the ecological function of a landscape with the aesthetic values of the property owner or manager. Emulating natural processes or creating landscapes with the intent and ability to “kick-start” many of the functions of natural systems, such as nutrient cycling or stormwater management, can also significantly reduce a created landscape’s requirements for water, fertilizers, and other inputs. These methods address the sustainability of a project, but more importantly, move beyond mere sustainability toward regeneration of ecosystem services that are generally lost through disturbances inherent in development and construction activities. Examples of ecosystem services include air and water purification, stormwater management, reduction of urban heat island effects, pollination, aesthetic quality, and other functions benefiting people and societies.
An effective approach to this type of work is the use of native vegetation appropriate for the specific project location. Ecological characteristics vary considerably, and working with vegetation adapted to specific environmental conditions increases a project’s efficiency through increased resiliency, inter and intra-species relationships, and preservation of community structure and existing energy flows. These qualities simply increase the efficient functioning of a created landscape, and reduce or eliminate the need for artificial inputs (such as water or fertilizers) resulting in an economic benefit while providing a sense of place and functional beauty.
Another approach is to utilize on-site resources to the greatest extent possible. Capture and control of stormwater is a common requirement in urban development, and is addressed in many Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R’s) in municipalities throughout the western United States. But shifting our view of stormwater as bothersome to a highly valued resource can encourage landscape designers and architects to include features designed to capture and use stormwater as a secondary or even primary irrigation source. An example of this is the creative design of vegetated bioswales. In many instances stormwater is directed off a roof, through a gutter, and down a spout or chain to a large hole in the ground filled with drainrock (a drywell). A more suitable use might be construction of a dry stream bed or vegetated swale designed to capture runoff from the downspout and use that seasonal moisture to create a unique climate and choose plants adapted to those seasonally moist areas. A number of native species naturally occur in similar environmental conditions, and can tolerate extremely dry soils during the heat of the summer. These types of features not only utilize a scarce resource, but add a unique aesthetic element to landscapes. Similarly, reusing soils and rock from excavation of a site as backfill and during landscape construction can help maintain some of the biological activity existing on site prior to disturbances. Projects designed to maintain or enhance the functional ecology of a project site have been shown to greatly reduce a landscapes dependence on human inputs such as water or fertilizers. Local municipalities can often supply examples of these types of projects.
One key element of landscapes designed to maximize efficiency is biodiversity. Although biodiversity has been defined in many different ways, the term generally refers to the range of organisms in an ecosystem. In a landscape setting, biodiversity is commonly used to refer to the number of plant species installed, and the diversity of soil organisms supporting the landscape. Maximizing both above-ground (plants) and below-ground (fungi, bacteria, nematodes, etc) diversity helps create a self-supporting and self-regulating landscape resistant to pests and resilient in response to changing environmental conditions. Research continues to provide examples of the essential relationship between plants and soil biota, and several companies provide commercial fungal and bacterial inoculants suitable for urban landscapes.
Our relationship with landscapes and many of our aesthetic values are a result of a long history of cultural values and marketing efforts of landscape, irrigation, or fertilizer companies. Recent drought conditions in much of the semi-arid western U.S. and a growing awareness of environmental issues by homeowners and contractors are challenging those historic views. Modification of municipal code, development of Best Management Practices (BMP’s), and an increase in application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques in project construction and maintenance are signs of a subtle shift in how we view and interact with created and managed environments.
But the number of projects addressing concerns over resource availability (predominantly water) is still small. An increased understanding and knowledge of environmental issues and how to address expected effects of climate change is critical for the continued viability of the landscape industry. New technology and shifts in design concepts and construction techniques within the green industry continue to improve efficiency of created landscapes, but some feel those changes are not fast enough or effective at addressing long-term sustainability of our industry. We as an industry can be proactive and act as leaders in the development of a truly sustainable future.
