If you liked this article, I recommend Robin Wall Kimmerer's Braiding Sweetgrass. She's a professional plant scientist and researcher, and her books are both informative and a delightful read.
I thought a notable omission was discussion of releasing iron or other minerals into the ocean to stimulate algal growth. It mimics natural processes such as wind blowing sand from desserts. Its been tried by a rogue effort that didn't seek permission but saw some success and had the effect of restoring fish numbers in the area.
I've gone back and forth on whether the potential for unintended consequences is too risky. Lately I've been in favor of slow, carefully controlled efforts. We've already geoengineered the oceans into a bad situation and are about to take things to a whole new level with ocean mining. Mineral release could be considered analogous to tree planting restoration work.
With regard to the sections about beavers, I went to an event this year where a beaver scientist mentioned that many European settlers in North America showed up after beavers had been nearly extirpated by trappers. So they would come across open flat areas with a stream flowing through which had likely been dammed by beavers in the past. This caused problems with flooding and water damage, and problems as beavers have been reestablished in much of the US (and Canada?)
Not related to the article, but related to Frank Herbert's Dune:
The Dune ecosystem is much less thought out than it appears to be. Herbert drops bits and pieces about the Dune ecology here and there so getting an overall picture is difficult, so we don't realize how silly it is.
* We don't know where sand plankton comes from.
* Sand plankton lives in the top layers of desert sand, eats spice.
* Some of the tiny sand plankton individuals grow larger, migrate deeper down, and become sand trout.
* Sand trout excrement combines with water pockets deep below, is biologically active, grows, releases gases and explodes, transporting it back to surface, becomes spice.
* We don't know what sand trout eats, but it should eat something in order to produce excrement.
* Some sand trouts grow larger, become sand worms.
* Sand worms eat sand plankton.
So the thole ecosystem consists only one species, with 3 life stages: (1) sand plankton, (2) sand trout, (3) sand worm. And stage 1 lives by eating the excrement of stage 2, and stage 3 lives by eating stage 1.
Ecologically and energetically this is silly. The species just eats itself and its own excrement, and there appears to be no energy input to the system.
One of the points in the first book is that after several hundred years, they still don't understand how the ecology of Dune works.
There are hints that Dune was once a thriving jungle world, before the sand trout encapsulated all the water deep below the surface. So there's plenty of organic matter, and water, and sunlight, to support the sandworm lifecycle.
Could it be that they go deep enough to get heat from a hot core?
I never thought about it like this, but it is a little strange that such an eco-centric author/book had a relatively shallow description of one of the main components of the ecosystem. Then again, the mystery may have been intentional. After all, we still don't understand perfectly well how many ecosystems functions, especially in the since of having a causal model sufficient to to predict responses to perturbations. I imagine at the time of writing ecosystems at large seemed even more indiscernible, so it wasn't a stretch to have some part of the many cycles involved that didn't make sense. But overall I lean toward it being kind of silly, as you say.
This summer I helped for a few hours to build Beaver Dam Analogues (BDAs) at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. I am really looking forward seeing the positive ecological impact when my future grand children trek Philmont. Building BDAs is good fun. You should try it.
Interesting, tell us more! Do the beavers use/upkeep them, or are they purely to create pools where there are no beavers to do so? If the former, is it needed because there aren't enough beavers or not enough wood/vegetation for them to build?
Do the beavers "adopt" the structures? Or are they too dissimilar to their constructions? I imagine the main goal is actually less about the beavers than it is restoring habitat that beavers otherwise create. Do you ever build them in places where there never were beavers?
I have this funny picture of beavers refusing to enjoy the dams because they didn't build them. No "pride of ownership".
Beavers were hunted so intensely that they completely disappeared decades ago in the area. Without the beavers building dams and thus slowing down the flow of creeks, more and more erosion took place and area that used to be wetlands dried out. With the gradual drying the willow tree disappeared, which is one of the major food sources for beavers. So while beavers are starting to repopulate, they don't move in where there is no food available.
So Philmont is building BDAs in order to slow down the creeks, providing suitable habitat for willows - and once this food source is once again established, the beavers should return and take over maintenance of the BDAs.
Frank Herbert was inspired to write Dune after hearing about the sand dunes on the coast of Oregon, which were growing out of control until their spread was controlled by the introduction of European beachgrass
At least on the part about the Nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis), seems they're edible in seed and root form [1][2][3] as long as they're leeched properly beforehand to get rid of bitter (possibly toxic) alkaloids. Grizzly bears apparently also relish the roots. Some butterflies feed off the lupine. Medicinally, with less references, used for digestive disorders, skin conditions, and infections.[4]
Can probably just farm them, or harvest the fields that exist, and then store the seeds / roots or make flour out of them. Seems like a possible farm crop personally. Go out with a harvester designed for beans / peas. There's not that much that grows in Iceland anyways.
15 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 46.4 ms ] threadI've gone back and forth on whether the potential for unintended consequences is too risky. Lately I've been in favor of slow, carefully controlled efforts. We've already geoengineered the oceans into a bad situation and are about to take things to a whole new level with ocean mining. Mineral release could be considered analogous to tree planting restoration work.
The Dune ecosystem is much less thought out than it appears to be. Herbert drops bits and pieces about the Dune ecology here and there so getting an overall picture is difficult, so we don't realize how silly it is.
* We don't know where sand plankton comes from.
* Sand plankton lives in the top layers of desert sand, eats spice.
* Some of the tiny sand plankton individuals grow larger, migrate deeper down, and become sand trout.
* Sand trout excrement combines with water pockets deep below, is biologically active, grows, releases gases and explodes, transporting it back to surface, becomes spice.
* We don't know what sand trout eats, but it should eat something in order to produce excrement.
* Some sand trouts grow larger, become sand worms.
* Sand worms eat sand plankton.
So the thole ecosystem consists only one species, with 3 life stages: (1) sand plankton, (2) sand trout, (3) sand worm. And stage 1 lives by eating the excrement of stage 2, and stage 3 lives by eating stage 1.
Ecologically and energetically this is silly. The species just eats itself and its own excrement, and there appears to be no energy input to the system.
There are hints that Dune was once a thriving jungle world, before the sand trout encapsulated all the water deep below the surface. So there's plenty of organic matter, and water, and sunlight, to support the sandworm lifecycle.
I never thought about it like this, but it is a little strange that such an eco-centric author/book had a relatively shallow description of one of the main components of the ecosystem. Then again, the mystery may have been intentional. After all, we still don't understand perfectly well how many ecosystems functions, especially in the since of having a causal model sufficient to to predict responses to perturbations. I imagine at the time of writing ecosystems at large seemed even more indiscernible, so it wasn't a stretch to have some part of the many cycles involved that didn't make sense. But overall I lean toward it being kind of silly, as you say.
Do the beavers "adopt" the structures? Or are they too dissimilar to their constructions? I imagine the main goal is actually less about the beavers than it is restoring habitat that beavers otherwise create. Do you ever build them in places where there never were beavers?
I have this funny picture of beavers refusing to enjoy the dams because they didn't build them. No "pride of ownership".
So Philmont is building BDAs in order to slow down the creeks, providing suitable habitat for willows - and once this food source is once again established, the beavers should return and take over maintenance of the BDAs.
https://www.pdxmonthly.com/arts-and-culture/2015/07/how-the-...
Can probably just farm them, or harvest the fields that exist, and then store the seeds / roots or make flour out of them. Seems like a possible farm crop personally. Go out with a harvester designed for beans / peas. There's not that much that grows in Iceland anyways.
[1] USDA, https://plants.usda.gov/DocumentLibrary/plantguide/pdf/pg_lu...
[2] Sierra Club, https://sierraclub.bc.ca/ecomap/nootka-lupine/
[3] Plants for a Future, https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Lupinus+nootkaten...
[4] Wild Flower Web, http://www.wildflowerweb.co.uk/plant/2579/nootka-lupin#:~:te...