How would we get a research regime like this underway in Australia? Are any government departments looking at these issues?
I understand that the Western Australian government had an interest at one point, inspired by a Peter Andrews project at Yanget. There was a move to do a large scale watershed restoration of the Gascoyne River, but I don’t think it has been completed. I think there was also a research project near Alice Springs, but I don’t know how that went.
Perhaps a conference in Canberra with politicians invited?
This is urgent. How long till fires irreversibly damage what little remains of our intact forests?
I think passing the list around to different scientists in Australia is one way to go. As one scientists gets into studying it, they may bring many other scientists along. Scientists influence each other. Then at some point, a larger research programme starts birthing.
This research agenda is seriously needed. The drought-fire-flood feedback loop concept is espescially compelling because it reframes degradation as a system stuck in a bad equilibrium rather than just isolated events. What makes me think is whether there's actually tipping points where intervention becomes way more cost-effective, like if you catch a watershed before it flips into the destructive regime. The idea that relatievly small restoration patches (10x10km) could trigger rainfall shifts seems almost too good to be true, but if it holds up under scrutiny that changes the whole calculus of climate adaptation.
Alpha glad to see that you're expanding a deeper look at hydrology as key in the water cycle however what needs to be determined: most of our planets major rivers systems and a portion ot their tributaries have been dammed and fragmented, We cannot ignore rivers ... not impounded rivers. Moving water is a crucial part of a natural ecology however it receives the least attention when we're talking Earths' hydrology.
It is important to take a deeper look at the impacts of impounding moving waters even for short periods
Alpha, I see you have not yet adopted my proposal that we should call the Small Water Cycle the Terrestrial Water Cycle. Perhaps, until it gains traction, we shall have to refer to it as the Terrestrial (Small) Water Cycle? I also think we have to be careful with Milan Milan's finding that even a 10x10km area can have a benefit on local rainfall. I believe that might be true within say 300km of a coastline (much of Spain?) but not true where I live, at least 1500km from the nearest coast. In fact I tried (unsuccessfully) to see if a mass of trees could have a local influence. Even if it did, I suspect it would be more a case robbing the surrounding Peter to pay Paul - the 10x10km of trees. That 10x10km would not be enough to draw more moisture in from the coast, which is what we are going to have to do. Bruce Danckwerts CHOMA Zambia
Yeah it depends on how much water is in ground, and the terrain. Ronny Meier did do his observtional data in Europe where 7 x11km cells with 20% more trees had significantly more rain. .... terrestrial water cycle is good, but there are already about 6 other names for the cycle. There is terrestrial moisture recycling already in use. I am just using names other people use for now.
HI Bruce I think a lot would also depend on where you plant them. I did some small scale work on an intermittent creek creating a few pools of more permanent water and the tree response was much greater in this area so one would assume the hydrological response would be greater as well. In reply to the slow spread data from fact one for Alpha, in the following video time 1h26m in show soil profile response to spreader levees which can encompass huge areas of semi arid flat land,
Regarding the regenerative agriculture question, I think we need to expand on this type of research from Jonas Steinfeld, which examines the performance of agroforestry systems based on their complexity: https://edepot.wur.nl/650194
Agroforestry can look and function in many ways. Simple agroforestry systems are not going to cut it from any perspective whether it be yield, resilience, carbon storage, or water cycle functionality. Polyculture, high plant density, complex canopy structure, and dynamic management are crucial for optimizing ecosystem function in agroforestry systems.
Ernst Gotsch’s methodology of Syntropic Agroforestry is, in my opinion, our most complete and coherent framework for maximizing ecosystem function in agroforestry. That said, I don’t think a lot of the literature or educational content on the subject is all that coherent – the method and its results are very real, but the visionaries and innovators behind it are not always the best communicators, and they don’t have access to the best science to back up their on-the-ground field research. We also need to modify these practices for climates other than the humid tropics, where it was developed. Marc Leiber, Felipe Pasini, and others are doing great work in the Mediterranean, and Gut and Boesel / the Finck Foundation is pushing forward in temperate Germany, but we need an exponential increase in R&D.
As you’ve often stated, Alpha, a lot of the results we see in complex systems do not accrue linearly, but rather flip and jump in seemingly discontinuous ways as you cross critical thresholds and tipping points. Most of our current agricultural research coming from incumbent institutions does not grasp this fact, and only examines little mechanistic changes to conventional practice. As a result, we are blind to the latent potential for rapid and profound regeneration which we might reach if only we cracked those critical thresholds of plant diversity, canopy structuring, and disturbance regimes.
Alpha, This is just brilliant!!! I've noticed that, here in the west, water management is often tied to snowpack. Since we are shifting to rain, there is little to no understanding of how water in the soil, impacts water in the rivers. Some believe that plants are 'stealing' water from the rivers. Getting research to clarify this would be helpful, indeed.
yes, i think we need to bring in water managers, regenerative water people, and academics together so we can develop a list of research problems. And maybe theres local programmes to bring local universities together with issues in their area.
It seems to me that Pixxel's firefly satellite will be a good tool for improving watershed scale conceptual and numerical models, and for encouraging cross disciplinary partnerships in research. The 5-meter resolution will certainly reveal some interesting small scale landscape features, like for instance groundwater springs and water gaining/losing surface water systems.
How would we get a research regime like this underway in Australia? Are any government departments looking at these issues?
I understand that the Western Australian government had an interest at one point, inspired by a Peter Andrews project at Yanget. There was a move to do a large scale watershed restoration of the Gascoyne River, but I don’t think it has been completed. I think there was also a research project near Alice Springs, but I don’t know how that went.
Perhaps a conference in Canberra with politicians invited?
This is urgent. How long till fires irreversibly damage what little remains of our intact forests?
I think it might be good to organize a conference of scientists and practitioners to hash out a fuller research agenda.
I think passing the list around to different scientists in Australia is one way to go. As one scientists gets into studying it, they may bring many other scientists along. Scientists influence each other. Then at some point, a larger research programme starts birthing.
This research agenda is seriously needed. The drought-fire-flood feedback loop concept is espescially compelling because it reframes degradation as a system stuck in a bad equilibrium rather than just isolated events. What makes me think is whether there's actually tipping points where intervention becomes way more cost-effective, like if you catch a watershed before it flips into the destructive regime. The idea that relatievly small restoration patches (10x10km) could trigger rainfall shifts seems almost too good to be true, but if it holds up under scrutiny that changes the whole calculus of climate adaptation.
Alpha glad to see that you're expanding a deeper look at hydrology as key in the water cycle however what needs to be determined: most of our planets major rivers systems and a portion ot their tributaries have been dammed and fragmented, We cannot ignore rivers ... not impounded rivers. Moving water is a crucial part of a natural ecology however it receives the least attention when we're talking Earths' hydrology.
It is important to take a deeper look at the impacts of impounding moving waters even for short periods
Yep that’s another question to go on the research programme
Alpha, I see you have not yet adopted my proposal that we should call the Small Water Cycle the Terrestrial Water Cycle. Perhaps, until it gains traction, we shall have to refer to it as the Terrestrial (Small) Water Cycle? I also think we have to be careful with Milan Milan's finding that even a 10x10km area can have a benefit on local rainfall. I believe that might be true within say 300km of a coastline (much of Spain?) but not true where I live, at least 1500km from the nearest coast. In fact I tried (unsuccessfully) to see if a mass of trees could have a local influence. Even if it did, I suspect it would be more a case robbing the surrounding Peter to pay Paul - the 10x10km of trees. That 10x10km would not be enough to draw more moisture in from the coast, which is what we are going to have to do. Bruce Danckwerts CHOMA Zambia
Yeah it depends on how much water is in ground, and the terrain. Ronny Meier did do his observtional data in Europe where 7 x11km cells with 20% more trees had significantly more rain. .... terrestrial water cycle is good, but there are already about 6 other names for the cycle. There is terrestrial moisture recycling already in use. I am just using names other people use for now.
HI Bruce I think a lot would also depend on where you plant them. I did some small scale work on an intermittent creek creating a few pools of more permanent water and the tree response was much greater in this area so one would assume the hydrological response would be greater as well. In reply to the slow spread data from fact one for Alpha, in the following video time 1h26m in show soil profile response to spreader levees which can encompass huge areas of semi arid flat land,
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/verterra-ecological-engineering_landscape-rehydration-and-rehabilitation-activity-7079602987467227137-0N-V
Regarding the regenerative agriculture question, I think we need to expand on this type of research from Jonas Steinfeld, which examines the performance of agroforestry systems based on their complexity: https://edepot.wur.nl/650194
Agroforestry can look and function in many ways. Simple agroforestry systems are not going to cut it from any perspective whether it be yield, resilience, carbon storage, or water cycle functionality. Polyculture, high plant density, complex canopy structure, and dynamic management are crucial for optimizing ecosystem function in agroforestry systems.
Ernst Gotsch’s methodology of Syntropic Agroforestry is, in my opinion, our most complete and coherent framework for maximizing ecosystem function in agroforestry. That said, I don’t think a lot of the literature or educational content on the subject is all that coherent – the method and its results are very real, but the visionaries and innovators behind it are not always the best communicators, and they don’t have access to the best science to back up their on-the-ground field research. We also need to modify these practices for climates other than the humid tropics, where it was developed. Marc Leiber, Felipe Pasini, and others are doing great work in the Mediterranean, and Gut and Boesel / the Finck Foundation is pushing forward in temperate Germany, but we need an exponential increase in R&D.
As you’ve often stated, Alpha, a lot of the results we see in complex systems do not accrue linearly, but rather flip and jump in seemingly discontinuous ways as you cross critical thresholds and tipping points. Most of our current agricultural research coming from incumbent institutions does not grasp this fact, and only examines little mechanistic changes to conventional practice. As a result, we are blind to the latent potential for rapid and profound regeneration which we might reach if only we cracked those critical thresholds of plant diversity, canopy structuring, and disturbance regimes.
Alpha, This is just brilliant!!! I've noticed that, here in the west, water management is often tied to snowpack. Since we are shifting to rain, there is little to no understanding of how water in the soil, impacts water in the rivers. Some believe that plants are 'stealing' water from the rivers. Getting research to clarify this would be helpful, indeed.
yes, i think we need to bring in water managers, regenerative water people, and academics together so we can develop a list of research problems. And maybe theres local programmes to bring local universities together with issues in their area.
It seems to me that Pixxel's firefly satellite will be a good tool for improving watershed scale conceptual and numerical models, and for encouraging cross disciplinary partnerships in research. The 5-meter resolution will certainly reveal some interesting small scale landscape features, like for instance groundwater springs and water gaining/losing surface water systems.
What do you think?