Brainfood: NbS, Intercropping, Sparing, Mixtures, Intensification, Shifting cultivation, Mexican wild foods, Chinese NUS, Andean crops, South African indigenous foods, Uganda community seedbanks

One Reply to “Brainfood: NbS, Intercropping, Sparing, Mixtures, Intensification, Shifting cultivation, Mexican wild foods, Chinese NUS, Andean crops, South African indigenous foods, Uganda community seedbanks”

  1. Nature-based solutions. This assumes, with no evidence at all, that Nature is always species-diverse. It supposes that in our management of natural ecosystems we have always lowered diversity and this change needs to be reversed by increasing biodiversity. This is simply silly fact-free nonsense. There are very many natural ecosystems that are `pure’ one-plant species monodominant. Some are essential for ecosystem services. I used to curate (and manage) vast areas of Rhizophora mangroves in the lagoon and vast beds of sea-grass on the reef flats on an atoll. I grew up in a town with 60km of coastline with vast swathes of monodominant marram-grass (Ammophila) on the sand-dunes and similar dominance of Spartina on the mud-flats. There is a vast area of wild rice in the Indus estuary.
    If you want to copy nature then these tough survivors are the thing to treasure, not the species of mixed vegetation that are too weak to exclude other weak species. That’s what `diverse’ vegetation actually is, composed of species too weak to become monodominant. It is beyond belief that the authors want all fields to be like that. Janzen had worked this out 50 years ago.
    Monodominant vegetation is resistant to any (or most) pest and disease pressures: it has to be to survive.
    Farmers need to follow the rice model—monodominant paddies—and not the `milpa’ model (more garden than field).

Leave a Reply to Dave Wood Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *