The War on Willows

Any questions or comments you have about Natural Sequence Farming processes. These could include general questions or ones about your personal problems.

PLEASE NOTE :
We do not endorse any answers from anyone in this forum except Peter Andrews himself.

Please remember, Natural Sequence Farming has to be tailored for your specific problem and to follow general advice may create more problems for you.

Moderator: webmaster

Post Reply
ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: The War on Willows

Post by ghosta » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:50 pm

Jodi, your posts reminded me of my uncle, now departed who used to argue wih anyone about the introduction of myxamatosis.

Uncle Bert helped raise his siblings as a teenager when my grandfather died. This was during the depression and rabbit was the staple diet. He went to work on farms and was employed for rabbit control a lot of the time and trapped, poioned, fumigated and shot rabbits for the rest of his life.

He cursed the government for introducing myxo. He argued that farmers could control rabbits on pasture by fencing, fumigating and poisoning with that marvellous invention 1080, creating employment. Rabbits could run wild on that "waste land"....national parks and reserves, and large pastoral leases where it was uneconomic to cotrol rabbits. That way there would always be a rabbit for anyone to eat and an income could always be had selling rabbits and rabbit skins. When the next depression came we would all survive there would be an assured food source for us all.

The government had conspired with the big commercial interest he said, and intoduced myxo. The result was farm labourers lost work, rabbit processing factories closed down, and hadly a rabbit could be got for the table. And when the next depression came what would we eat?

One mans pill is another mans poison. And so it is with willows!

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: The War on Willows

Post by duane » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:11 pm

When Govts and their bureaucratic departments realise that CO2 has a $$$ value, maybe then National Parks, the CMA's etc will reconsider the role of plant communities and the role of biodiversity in the sustained health of that system.

In the photos that Shirley posted earlier, of the devastating effects of the Tooma flood, we saw carbon (dead willow trees and red river gums) piled 'a mile high' and all of it was being burnt and with the resulting Co2 going straight back into the atmosphere, not into the plants and into the soils where we need soil carbon and OM.

We need to close the gap......maybe $$$ money will be the solution?? of the wholesale destruction of our plant communities.

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: The War on Willows

Post by ghosta » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:33 pm

Fella down the road raves on about hemp, hemp clothes, hemp houses, hemp for everything as a carbon store and how the government should legalise and subsidise it blah blah blah...........

Think he may be returning too much carbon back to the atmosphere. He goes quiet when I ask him where does the energy come from for his lights in the ceiling of his house.....

Julian
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: The War on Willows

Post by Julian » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:01 pm

Hi Ghosta,

When I first came to this site I was skeptical about certain Weeds (Gorse) in my case, I couldn't see how it could have a positive affect. But this site has helped me understand that all plants are Wonderful and are all doing good work. It will come to you too eventually. Just keep an open mind and understand that different plants come and go according to the conditions. And todays plants will be tomorrows electricity if we dont burn or rip them out before hand. :D

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: The War on Willows

Post by duane » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:33 pm

Humour is a wonderful leveler.

Ghosta your delivery was perfect when you said
Think he may be returning too much carbon back to the atmosphere.
.

Keep the laughter coming...we can all do with a lot more of it.

I simply broke up......

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: The War on Willows

Post by ghosta » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:03 pm

Julian wrote:Hi Ghosta,

When I first came to this site I was skeptical about certain Weeds (Gorse) in my case, I couldn't see how it could have a positive affect. But this site has helped me understand that all plants are Wonderful and are all doing good work. It will come to you too eventually. Just keep an open mind and understand that different plants come and go according to the conditions. And todays plants will be tomorrows electricity if we dont burn or rip them out before hand. :D
One of the problems I see in peoples thinking is that in NSF we have to make use ALL weeds. Thats the wrong way of looking at it.
NSF uses plants for a specific purpose- to provide diversity for the health of stock, to help regenerate depleted soil, build soil structure etc etc. It just so happens that many of these plants are colonisers of areas that are depleted and have adapted to thrive in these circumstances. It does NOT follow that all weeds are automatically good in your particular circumstances.

For instance, some thistles get caught in the fleece of sheep and downgrade the quality of the fleece when it is sold. A wool farmer would be wise to eliminate all these thistles on his property and use another plant that replicates the role of thistles in his work with NSF.

Most farmers have spent considerabe effort to get rid of certain weeds on their property, and for the effort has been rewarded with increased production. Gorse and bracken are common examples. Frankly, anyone saying that these weeds should be left and he will see improvements to his farm productivity might be considered a "ratbag", simply because the farmer has proved beyond any doubt that it is not true.

I suspect many mainstream farmers view NSF with suspicion for this very reason, and hence there is no way they will even investigate further.

If NSF is to become more widespread , then advocates need to get rid of their hangup on weeds, and instead promote the use of "plants for a purpose'. When you think about it, just relying on whatever seeds the wind blows in when there may be much more suitable plant species to do the job, is simply cutting yourself short. Farmers certainly dont htink that way in their approach to farming, they want to plant the best possible plant to do the job they ask of it.....thats the way to maximise productivity.

And if the plant you use spreads outside your property to where it is not wanted and causes the landowner problems, it simply should not be used unless your prepared to hunt down all specimens of that plant on your neighbours property pronto. Pretending you are doing him a favour when you are not, is selfish and arrogant, and akin to lighting a fire and allowing it to burn into your neighbours property.

Jodi James
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:36 pm
Location: Avon West Australia

Re: The War on Willows

Post by Jodi James » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:00 pm

Well well Ghosta????

I am a Broadacre Farmer. I have ventured down that road of listening to Farm Advisors etc etc, which in turn nearly sent us Broke. I then found NSF and finally realised what it was all about. As a matter of fact I am trying to make changes and also try some new ideas that aren't the Norm....and yes it's a big risk! But I can't see any sense in ripping out perfectly healthy willow trees. That's what I would call CRAZY..it's as bad as clearing our rain forests. It's Bloody stupid. If it grows then let it be, it isn't poisonous, they don't kill livestck, they create shade and they hold the ground together in a flood, why the hell are you even suggesting to erradicte them. Idiots is all I can say, It's Green leave the dam things alone. GREEN CARBON do you know what it means? try and think about what you breath in every day...because that is what your pulling out, your oxygen supply which helps you breathe....you must take that for granted, or you wouldn't even consider pulling out the trusty tree that uses all your CO2 that you exhale. No trees...No rain ,No rain, No food and then you die.... simple equation, you don't need a degree to work that one out!

Sounds like your just interested in an arguement, obviously some over educated nob that likes to cause a stir, go do it somewhere else where people can be bothered listening to your negative claptrap.

Maybe after these drastic floods, you might like to go and have a look at what has held our precious land together. You might find that it is the trusty willow which is still standing! Go do some scientific research on land erosion after flooding, might help you understand their purpose.
Open mindedness opens wisdom

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: The War on Willows

Post by ghosta » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:16 pm

Jodi we are indeed fortunate not everyone thinks the way you do, Ill do what i like, stuff everyone else, if my weeds infect someone else its their problem, Im not taking any responsibility.

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: The War on Willows

Post by duane » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:04 pm

Ghosta and sceptic. Your comments on the paper Willows-Weeds of retention by Dr Michael Wilson would be appreciated.

Jodi James
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:36 pm
Location: Avon West Australia

Re: The War on Willows

Post by Jodi James » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:30 pm

I don't really care what you think, all I'm trying to say is keep the willows! If your not prepared to listen, that's not my problem either. I couldn't care less what tree it is, all I care about is seeing trees, not piles of sticks from trees being ripped out of the ground. This year I drove down our road and saw the most awfull sight due to farmers using auto steer and guideance systems, they are pushing out trees if they are in the pathway of the tractor, and now everyone is pulling out the willows on their waterways. People are forgetting about nature. You can all argue on this site about everything but the reality is it takes a few minutes to push over a tree, but years to grow it. Has anyone considered that in all the research. Years to grow it. That's my point!
Open mindedness opens wisdom

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: The War on Willows

Post by ghosta » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:39 am

Duane Ive commented before but Ill repeat the post-

Dr Wilsons paper is a little short on detail and its difficult to know how to interperet some aspects of his work in a more general sense.

He does not state what method of willow removal was adopted, one would expect differences if the willows were poisoned compared to bringing in a bulldozer or excavator to rip the willows out by their roots.

The species of willow he studied has not been identified. This is important- the fact that the willows have been there for over 40 years tends to indicate they are not the more vigorous hybrid species which are actively seeding and spreading. The reason for willow removal has not been identified, we know the area studied is a reserve, he may be removing weeping willows or cloned same sex species.

But his studies do identify the potential consequences of willow removal, and hence the need to exercise care when planning a removal project. Options other than mechanical removal need to be considered.

He raises the idea of sucession by underplanting as an option, but other than saying "This is observable already in old stands" he has not attempted to research this further in this paper. We are not sure what is actually being observed, is it the vigourous growth of underplanted species and the wilows have been supressed and will eventually die, or have they been killed quickly outright? Would this technique be usefull with the more vigorous hybrid species which already outcompete native vegetation and it would be expected that etablishment of underplants would be difficult. Also this concept ignores the implications of cross breding and seeding; if it takes 20 years to kill the willows but during this time further areas have been infested, perhaps hundreds of metres away then his conclusion "Clearly a better way is needed and that is succession" is simply not valid in the absence of evidence.

Nor is their any inducation of the success rate, it would be useful to know if this technique could be developed to the degree that it has a 100% success rate, and obviously more research is needed.

But I do believe he is has identified a tool worth persuing. In suitable willow species and where they are of the same sex, underplanting may be the first step. This is followed up by an assesment of the effectiveness of the operation with followup plantings for maintenance. Where underplanting is unsucessfull, then other techniques (poinsoning,mechanical removal etc) may be needed to complete the job, but such a program would have benefits to the enviroment generally, over some alternative techniques.

It would mean a change in community expectations ie the willows would take years to remove, and also a change of thinking for funding authorities. There is a tendency for grants to be made avaiable for specific tasks and a short timeframe for spending this money, and the reason a grant has been made may be supported by some particular political motive which is present only for a short period.

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

Re: The War on Willows

Post by Shirley Henderson » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:42 am

Hello Jodi, It is great to hear someone sticking up for trees. Im with you. Research by government and companies with an interest is usually done for costing purposes. I would like Ghosta to consider that if you are planning a bush regeneration project or taking care of a reserve or planning a development, that is an entirely different situation to farming thousands of acres. It all takes money, and money that farmers do not have to spend on such things. Willows and weeds can be beneficial in providing much needed plants to start the process of regeneration or preserving the integrity of an area. To you Ghosta I say, that out of scientific interest I would think you would support experimentation. If your concern is weeds spreading to neighbouring properties then you are speaking of small land holders. (I know willows can travel long distances, please dont quote willow research, I am aware of it) How about the farms that are of a grand scale. Why not use those desolate areas (I know deserts are valuable and have valuable wildlife, taking that into consideration) to trial NSF where the willows and weeds are contained to a degree for research purposes. What a fantastic trial that would be. To allow NSF without restrictions but under the guidance of PA. Willows and weeds are not just for farms but I have been watching with great interest the succession of plants in many areas. I photograph them time and time again as you have seen. I overlap the pics and record what I see happening. This is what needs to be done over many years to understand what is happening in our environment. You are not alone in your despair Jodi. I have seen acres of endangered bushland full of wildlife and birdlife wiped out for development. The surveys of the biodiversity in those areas were done over a period of 2-days. Then statements such as (poor quality) attached. Never mind that the plant life changes with the seasons, the climate, drought or rain periods. Never mind that the wildlife come and go and more than likely will not even be recorded as being there. Never mind that orchids and other plants only appear when the conditions are absolutely right for them. Never mind plant succession. Somehow it has been accepted that if you wipe out remnant forest and replace it with tubestock plantings you are putting it back? They have even found a way to make a buck out of it. Now you can write of the pollution your company creates by buying the tubestock and claiming somekind of credit for that, to offset you pollution.
Its rediculous. Keep up your good work Jodi and Im behind you all the way. Shirley :)
ps. Ghostra ....What kind of work do you do? :?:

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: The War on Willows

Post by duane » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:19 am

Thanks ghosta for posting your critical summary on the Wilson paper.

I would like to hear more from others before I make any further comments on this willow issue.

Meantime, I want to wish everyone contributing to this important discussion a very Happy and safe Christmas.

I'm about to have a break.

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: The War on Willows

Post by duane » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:18 am

This article by Ian Sutton is appropriate to post again here because it pertains to keeping biodiversity IN the eco system.....not destroying it or removing it or burning it thereby removing biodiversity and carbon from the system.

This article on biodiversity, is the first in a series by Ian Sutton which has also been posted in Information for the Day. viewforum.php?f=12

Understanding natural systems :

Have you ever wondered why bio-diversity in the Environment is so important?

It all comes down to the complexity of feedback loops, all interacting with each other.

In order for equilibrium, (perfect balance), to be maintained in a system there must be an equal flow of energy both entering the system and leaving the system. This creates cycles, or feedback loops, within the system.

When there is excess available energy entering a cycle the balance moves away from equilibrium. Once that excess energy is consumed, the cycle begins moving back towards equilibrium, releasing the energy it had absorbed in the previous stage of the cycle. This energy is then made available for other feedback loops to absorb and move away from equilibrium, and intern passing the energy on when they return to equilibrium.

The greater the number of feedback loops interacting with each other, the less energy is available to any one loop. This safeguards against any one cycle absorbing to much of the available energy and moving to far away from equilibrium.

WHAT THE: One simple example of a feedback loop system is the food web. The predator prey relationships. This is the cycle of solar energy that is converted into chemical energy by the plants and some microbes. The food web facilitates the flow of this energy throughout the entire biota.
If a wallaby population increases in number it can be due to the influence of several feedback loops. If it is a good year for rain the extra vegetation provides a higher calorie intake of energy. The response of the cycle to this increase in available energy is to increase in population and move away from the existing equilibrium. Alternatively it could be a sudden decline in predators, this equates to an energy input to the wallabies, again responding by increasing in population.

In situation one the growth of the population of wallabies will slow and then cease when the population of the predators increase, in response to their increase in available energy. Alternatively, if there is no predator in the system, the wallaby population increase will slow and then cease only once the available food source declines and there is not sufficient energy input to continue the population growth. A steep incline is always followed by a steep decline.

A food chain is a connection of feedback loops.

From each successive feedback loop energy moves up the food chain. A food web is a network of feedback loops all mediating each other. As bio-diversity decreases, strands of the food web are cut. As the complexity of the food web decreases the buffering effect is decreased and individual feedback loops can now absorb much larger inputs of energy.
If there is low bio-diversity resulting in grasshoppers having no predators, and a good season for rain increases their food availability, the resulting population increase would not be mediated since their predators are not present to consume some of the increased available energy. The plague would only begin to decrease in population when the energy the vegetation is providing, decreases through over grazing. However this feedback loop does not kick in until after the damage is done and can often lead to desertification and extinction.

The greater the number of relationships an organism has, the more safeguards are in place. If an organism has many predators and one becomes extinct, the resulting available energy would be shared by all related feedback loops allowing all the populations to increase only a small amount. The population of the prey will still be maintained by the other existing predators, as all population then adjust towards the new equilibrium.

The food chain is also layered into trophic levels. Each level is influential in balancing the levels below and above them. The highest trophic level is the top predators. Top predators tend to be opportunist hunters who have a wide range of prey. Like all living organism, energy efficiency is the name of the game, so they hunt whatever is easiest to catch. If any of their prey has a spike in population, they become the easiest to find. The top predators act as a secondary feedback loop to correct any energy imbalances in the trophic layers below them. Very important function!

The Environment is a network of relationships and the greater the bio-diversity, the more complex the network becomes and the more balanced the system becomes.

Diversity mediates the populations of all living things and as diversity decreases the fluctuation in populations increase. Pest and disease are the results of a decrease in bio- diversity while pestilence and plague are the results of the loss of bio-diversity.

Australia is losing bio-diversity at an alarming rate and once the level of diversity reaches critical point; the stage is set for a mass extinction. Combine this with climate changed predictions of more extreme weather patterns creating prolonged droughts and then destructive flooding rains and the near future does not look bright for our flora and fauna.

We need to protect all remaining diversity if we are going to have any chance of restoring a balance to the environment. Keep in mind if the mass extinction occurs we won’t see a balance return until new diversity evolves. That is only a split second in geological time but will seem forever in human time.


Written by
Ian Sutton

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: The War on Willows

Post by duane » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:08 pm

This is the second in a series of articles written by Ian Sutton.

Co-operation is the key: PLANT SUCCESSION

Once you understand the seriousness of the situation, it becomes necessary to begin co-operating, not only with each other, but with the environment. Nature is a self repairing system that naturally moves towards equilibrium. The current problem is that we have vastly increased the amount of energy entering the system, disrupting the feedback loop network, and driving the cycles away from equilibrium.

Remember, everything is energy, so inputs of all kinds constitutes an energy source. Whenever we create order in a system it requires the input of energy. Equilibrium is maximum disorder or infinite possibilities, and all systems move away from disorder when there is an energy imbalance. For a system to find balance again it must re-establish a high degree of disorder.

When we look at the environment, what constitutes disorder? Bio- Diversity creates disorder. The higher the level of diversity, the greater the disorder, and what you should all understand by now is that there is function in the disorder, complexity allows energy to flow unrestricted.

How can we work with the natural process of systems moving towards equilibrium? We must firstly reduce our energy inputs entering the systems. Our human footprint is very heavy and we need to begin treading lightly on the earth. Many of these issues can be effectively addressed through holistic approaches to sustainable development.

Farming is perhaps the single most destructive practice we carry out. Current methods require the removal of all bio-diversity over large areas of land, to create an ordered system (monoculture). The resulting loss of fertility and increasing pest and disease problems have lead to the increasing use of chemical inputs. This input of excess energy then devastates the soil biology further, creating more pestilence and plague.

Irrigation and storm water runoff from farmlands poison our water systems with excessive salts/nutrients and chemicals, wiping out much of the diversity within our rivers and streams. Tilling the ground destroys soil structure and leads to the loss of organic matter, this intern leads to the further loss of fertility and the loss of our top soils.

With vastly reduces vegetation cover, flooding rains become destructive, and scour deep channels in our hills and flood plains. Once the flooding has past, these channels left behind act like a drainage system carrying all of our water to the ocean, and in the process draining the landscape of its precious ground tables. Modern farming practices have input massive amounts of energy into the natural system, resulting in the destruction of the landscape functions and the desertification of much of our once fertile lands.

I will look at farming in a future paper, but keep in mind every landscape function you are learning about needs to be incorporated into the management system of any farm. Let’s just focus on regenerating natural systems for the moment.
Arguably the largest energy increase mans impact has created is the input of solar radiation. We have cleared much of the landscape and have vastly increased the suns intensity reaching our soils. Where before the plants insulated the landscape, and shaded the soils, the sun now bakes them dry and heats the air above them. Between the ultra violet light and the lack of moisture the soil diversity is decimated.

If diversity decreases within the soil then energy cannot flow unrestricted to the plants. The result of infertile soils is an energy imbalance causing plant communities, the first trophic level, to move away from equilibrium, impacting on all trophic levels above them. If the landscape functions have broken down and there is no secondary feedback loops functioning, then the end result will be a desert.

So how do we get plant communities to begin their natural succession process back towards equilibrium? We begin by reducing the amount of solar energy entering the system. This can be done using a combination of rehydrating the landscape and layering. I will do a future paper on rehydrating the landscape but for now I will focus on using plant successions to develop layering.

There is a natural succession process that plant communities cycle through. When soils are impacted by high energy inputs such as wind and sun, this evaporates soil moisture and decreases fertility. Areas such as exposed ridges, sand dunes and headlands, and further afield the semi arid and arid zones are all dominated by heath scrub and or dry grassland communities. If water availability drops, these systems become deserts.

As we have drained the landscape and baked it dry in the sun, heath communities and other dry plant communities, such as woodlands and dry forests have greatly expanded their territories. Much of what was wetlands, rainforest and wet forests have become dry forests and even woodlands. Our impact on the environment has driven the plant succession process away from equilibrium, towards desertification, and in the process has enabled fire to rampage out of control.

If the energy imbalance is a negative one, in other words water in the soil freezers for long periods of time, tundra plant communities will dominate. Essentially heath and tundra plant communities are the same and both are adapted to low fertility, exposed conditions and lack of available water. In cold climates, removing the insulating vegetation layers sends the succession process towards an ice desert.

At the other end of the scale is the rainforests, plant communities that can only dominate in ideal conditions with optimum water availability and fertility. In these conditions maximum bio-diversity within the soil can develop, allowing energy to flow unrestricted between the trophic layers of the plants and soil biota. This allows maximum diversity to also develop within the plant community. If water availability increases further, then a wet grassland / wetland system will result.
The natural plant succession from the least fertile, driest soils, to the most fertile, moist soils, is; 1- HEATH SCRUB / DRY GRASSLANDS: Single layered systems, least bio-diversity, highest number of repair plants, 2- WOODLANDS: two layered systems, 3- DRY FORESTS: Three layered systems, 4- WET FORESTS: four layered system, 5- RAINFORESTS: five layered systems, most bio-diversity, lowest number of repair plants.

All these plant communities exist in different microclimates throughout the central coast. Our temperate climate, unique geological features and proximity to the ocean create dramatic variations in the amount of available water in our soils. Exposure to wind, aspect, degree of slope, height on slope and distance from the ocean are all determining factors in creating our microclimates. The result is a mosaic patch work of different plant communities, giving the central coast region one of the highest levels of diversity left in the country. This makes our region one of high priority when it comes to diversity protection.

Weeds can encroach into any of the succession stages, but only if there has been a disturbance in the layers of the system. Weeds are categorised as primary succession plants and are the first repair plants to re-establish in a disturbed ecosystem. They are the secondary feedback loop that absorbs some of the excess available energy, increased sun intensity, and converts it into bio-mass. It is this efficient conversion of solar energy into chemical energy that gives weeds their ability to quickly re-build soil fertility.

Primary succession plants are opportunist, fast growing ,short lived and have effective distribution mechanism that allow them to spread quickly. They will also have specialised root systems and other adaptation that enable them to grow well in poor conditions. Their function is to cover the soil quickly by creating a layer of vegetation, reducing sun intensity, trapping humidity and allowing soil moisture and fertility to begin to rebuild.

An equation Peter Andrews taught me in order to determine the effectiveness of a repair plant, is to, calculate the green surface area over time and space. In other words the green surface area of the plant is- divided by-(the time the plant takes to mature- times- the space the plant takes up at ground level). The weed that has the largest green surface area, grows the quickest and takes up the least amount of space will be the most effective repair plant.

The large green surface area can convert more of the suns energy into bio-mass. The short life cycle means that the plant can quickly pass on that bio-mass to the soil biota, when it dies and decomposes. This enabling the soil biology to more quickly rebuild in diversity, and repair the soil structure. The smaller the area the plant takes up at the soil surface the greater the number of plants can grow in any one place and the more effective the repair process becomes.

By observing weeds we can come to understand the natural repair process that plants facilitate in the landscape. Developing layers of vegetation quickly, using specialised repair plants. At no point within natural cycles is any plant removed from the system until their function has been completed.

We need to recognise that weeds are not the problem and in fact are part of the solution. They are simply the repair mechanisms, the secondary feedback loop, that has been initiated by our impact on the landscape. Where ever human impact contributes a high energy input into an ecosystem the weed succession will simply continue to dominate in a desperate attempt to correct the imbalance.

Landscape repair will only become effective when we begin co-operating with the weeds. This will allow the network of secondary feedback loops to begin to re-establish and initiate the natural plant succession process back towards layering and diversity.

As the soil moisture and fertility increases, due to the weeds, the plant communities above increase in both layering and diversity. As the layering and diversity increases within the plant community, the soil biota below increases in both layering and diversity. If the microclimate is suitable, this feedback loop will drive the plant succession all the way back to a rainforest.

So vegetation layering is one of the keys to landscape function. It reduces the amount of solar radiation entering the system, by shading and insulating the soil. It converts much of the excess available solar energy into bio-mass for distribution throughout the food web. It traps lost soil moisture as humidity within the layers of vegetation, which in the cool of the evening condenses and returns to the soil (micro water cycle). And it also protects the soil from erosion.
However, probably the most important function of vegetation is its moderation of the climate. Plants are not only responsible for filtering CO2 out of the atmosphere, they also manage the hydrological systems on land, and are influential in developing and maintaining both ground and surface water systems. The transpiration of water from their leaves provides cool moist air above the landscape, and as this air contracts it draws low pressure systems in off the ocean, bringing more regular and less extreme rain events to the inland.

I will discuss these last two points in my next paper because I am going to attempt to explain the most important landscape function of all, the hydrological system. This is what I have learnt most about from Peter Andrews, and this will be my first attempt to explain it. The process of rehydrating the landscape is the key to both landscape repair and sustainable farming practices, and because of this I can’t really go into any more details on either point until you understand about water.


Written by
Ian Sutton

Post Reply