Ecologists breaking (unwritten) ecological laws

Andy Jarvis, our man with the global insights, sends this despatch:



ResearchBlogging.org


This article just came out in Science about assisted colonization. ((O. Hoegh-Guldberg, L. Hughes, S. McIntyre, D. B. Lindenmayer, C. Parmesan, H. P. Possingham, C. D. Thomas (2008). ECOLOGY: Assisted Colonization and Rapid Climate Change Science, 321 (5887), 345-346 DOI: 10.1126/science.1157897)) That is the fancy term for moving a population from one place to another. Over the past few years this concept has been gaining ground, especially with the barrage of horror stories about the impacts of climate change on the geographic range of species. The authors propose a decision framework to identify candidate species for translocation (or assisted colonisation as it seems to now be called). The decision framework consists of criteria for threat, feasibility, and cost-benefit. Amazingly, the whole concept of ecological risk is not taken into account in the decision framework. The authors mention it in the text, and sidestep the issue somewhat by saying that these are short distance translocations, but this may not always be the case. With the best of intentions, we’ve had some really great “assisted colonisation” events in the past that have caused ecological disaster. See Australia, Lake Victoria, the Southern US, etc. etc. The list is endless.

Before I go too far, I must step back and state the positive side of this concept. After all, the objective is conservation. Done properly, with sound risk analysis of direct and indirect impacts on ecological communities (and anthropogenic systems, like … errrr… agriculture), assisted colonisation could save species from near certain doom. An innocent way of seeing it is that you are just lending a hand to species who can’t quite migrate as fast as others. If migration rates are lower than the speed of climate change, or a pesky river gets in their way, then ecologists come to the rescue and move you. It’s like helping an old lady across the road.

Avoiding long-distance assisted colonisation is a useful surrogate for “eco-safety” (a new term is born), but I think it is dangerous as many assumptions are being made with that one. Suggested next article: Risk analysis framework for assisted colonisation. Readers get going.

As a side note, and while I am in the mood for inventing new terms, we also need to come up with a name for this kind of conservation. We have in situ, we have ex situ. What would be good for this kind of conservation? Non-situ could well be the case if you don’t assist colonisation, but I can’t think of a good name for populations that are assisted. Anyone fancy a place in the history books by giving this a name? ((I propose neo-situ. Ed.))

Diversity really does benefit farms and farmers

Anastasia and Jacob commented on the post about eating insects, to the effect that converting insects into chickens might, despite the inefficiencies involved, be a better way of using insects than converting them directly into people. I loved watching the film Jacob pointed to, not least because I used to work with chickens, love chickens, and love to hear the peeping of contented chicks. And I found Anastasia’s link to a company seeking to replace the fish protein in mass-produced chicken feed with mass-produced insect protein interesting and illuminating too, even though (especially because?) it comes at the problem from exactly the opposite end of the agro-industrial scale.

There is, of course, a middle-way, one that is applicable to more intensive operations in more developed countries. Let the chickens eat the insects growing on manure, without first collecting the manure! I know it sounds wacky, but it works, and has done for a few centuries, at least. After his week visiting Joel Salatin’s operation Michael Pollan waxed positively evangelical about how Salatin follows cows with chickens on his pasture, the miracle being that Salatin doesn’t let the chickens in immediately but waits four days, which is when the dung fly larvae are at their biggest, juiciest and most nutritious. Smart. I also remember visiting the Land Institute’s Sunshine Farm in Salinas, Kansas, back in the early 1990s, when it was under the care of the wonderful Marty Bender. (This is the closest I can get to his obit at The Land Institute’s site ((Come on people, you really need to do something about that.)), but here’s a taste.)

Marty showed me a huge pile of manure, way above my head, being worked on by a fine crowd of fit-looking hens. I can’t remember the details, but as I recall this was effectively the sweepings from the stock’s winter barn, just shovelled out the door with a bulldozer and left there. This is where I get hazy. I think that in due course the mound was reduced and spread out to the point where it could be used to grow veggies. And each spring a new mound would be created, moving around the winter barn. That’s it in principle anyway, a wonderful piece of integration on the farm.

Which leads me nicely to something else I read with pleasure recently. Gary Jones has a fine piece over at Muck and Mystery, explaining how farms, particularly in the Northern Plains of the US, integrated cows into their system through a technique called swath grazing. Farmers pile crop residue into rows called swathes and let the cattle graze them right through the winter. I won’t say more than that, because Gary has done a great job of explaining why that’s a good thing, why it stopped, and why it now might make good sense to start again.

d1177-1.jpg Gary’s post was prompted by a report from the USDA on recent research into Integrated Farming Systems. That’s the USDA’s picture of cows grazing on corn swathes in the winter snow in North Dakota. The money quote:

“Adding diversity brings sustainability to farms, both economically and environmentally.”

The Ghanaian chicken farmer, the Florida feed manufacturers, the farmers of the Great Plains and the corn belt; they’re all doing the same thing: making the best use of their resources. In farming, as in everything else: “the future is here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet.”

And one of the ways in which I think the future will change farming is that smaller will become more beautiful. This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot recently, brought into focus by the slight drubbing I’ve received from the same Gary Jones ((See, no hard feelings.)) over my sloppy writing on pesticides. Until now, get big or get out was the way of industrial agriculture. But scale is going to have to change as it becomes more expensive to move things about the old way. The big guys have had the clout to make the system work only for them, effectively squeezing out the small fry. It happened with abattoirs in England and seed merchants throughout the European Union. And now its happening to small farmers hit by the same natural disasters as the big farmers but denied the same level of compensation by government. Maybe that will change too, but not without a fight.

Goji lovers threaten devastation

The UK government is warning that illegal imports of goji (Lycium barbarum) plants threatens commercial potato and tomato crops with destruction. Goji, tomato and potato are all members of the family Solanaceae, and apparently “bugs” could come in on the clandestine gojis. According to one advisor, “the retail value of British tomato production is £150m, and potatoes are worth more than that, so the size of the industry that is under threat is pretty massive. If some bugs were to arrive here, they would be devastating.”

The Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate destroyed my entire stock of pepino (Solanum muricatum) in a former life because of some viral threat, even though the plants they confiscated initially tested negative. It’s easy to think that these “invading pests and diseases” threats are just crying wolf, but all the evidence suggests that intensive plantings are indeed very vulnerable. Of course, why that should be so is another matter …

I’m not sure how the UK government plans to sniff out every goji plant, but Sir Mick Jagger and Kate Moss, goji enthusiasts, presumably have plans to cope. Let’s hope proposed imports get up to speed soon, and don’t carry the bugs.

Growing greens in Kenya

The relationship between food, nutrition and health is what is missing in most of Kenya’s homes and even at the national level even when they talk of food security.

Helen Murangi, whose family farms 11 hectares near Kiringa in Kenya, grows all kinds of greens, and stresses their value for good nutrition and as a cash crop.

Murangiri farm has with time come to classify weeds into good weeds, that are now grown intentionally for food and human medicine and the other weeds from which the farm derives its pesticides and herbicides needs. In the class of ‘good weeds’ are such common plants as the Black jerk, Jute (mlenda in Swahili), or murere in Luhya, Kisii), ground nuts, Amaranths, Spider Plant (thangeti in Kikuyu, chiisaka in Luhya, a lot-dek in Luo, saget in Kalenjin), Pumpkin, Crotolaria, Solanum, the various Aloe specie among many others.

According to Helen, what she earns from her small portions of these good weeds combined earns her far more that what she gets from the 7 hecteres she had dedicated to mangos. Interestingly enough, every one in Murangiri’s home is converse with the value of everything that occupies their farm’s space and can explain in detail about each plant and crop—from the biological name, local name, its usefulness etc.

Lots more from the horse’s mouth, as it were, at Africa Science News Service.