Drs. Lew Ziska of the USDA Agricultural Research Service and Jeff Dukes of Purdue have just published a significant new work entitled Weed Biology and Climate Change. (Yikes - it is 149 simoleons! Wiley-Blackwell, have you no shame?! At least they have the decency to publish an interview with the authors... Let's hope the message gets out there}.

Our efforts to control the environment to advance human well-being are characterized by the creative use of energy to increase our ability to work, and by harnessing nature through agriculture to produce food more abundantly than is provided by nature. These two major civilizing trends have run head on into one another with climate change. Our preferred energy source, fossil fuels, release carbon into the atmosphere, creating changes that in turn affect our ability to farm. If we are to avert simultaneous food and energy crises that would threaten to bring many communities to their knees, we need to be at the top of our game. This book represents the kind of science we need to understand and act on.

The Agricultural Research Service is one of those federal agencies potentially on the chopping block (see http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill). People, let's not cut off our nose to spite our faces!

Amplify’d from wisciblog.com

Weed Biology and Climate Change

In a nutshell, what are the most significant ways climate change is affecting weed biology?

ZISKA: Weeds are supremely adapted to change; they thrive on environmental disturbance. Therefore, sudden changes in temperature, CO2, drought, floods . . . in short, all of what we anticipate with global climate change, increase ecological “opportunities” for weed seed dispersal, initiation, and biological success.

ZISKA: There are some weeds that are universally recognized as being harmful in almost all circumstances (e.g. puncture vine, nightshades, poison ivy). That being said, there are many plants that are undesirable simply because we haven’t found a use for them. For example, wild or red rice is an acknowledged weed in rice production, but may also have unique genes that will allow it to survive in extreme environments—genes that may be very useful in adapting cultivated rice to climate change.

Do you anticipate that climate change will impact all growing environments, even down to amateur gardens? If so, what sort of advice would you give to non-scientists for dealing with this issue?

DUKES: Yes, it already has. I was in England a few years ago and got to visit some gardens where Robert Marsham and his ancestors had been tracking the flowering dates of a variety of plant species since 1736. Keeping track of flowering times and the timing of “signs of spring” is a pretty common hobby there. Plants in that region are now flowering, on average, something like a week or two earlier than they ever did before over that time span.

So, yes, climate change has already altered growing environments in lots of ways. But it’s not something that would be obvious to anyone over a period of a decade; there’s too much year-to-year variability for people to notice trends over that sort of timespan. And it won’t change peoples’ day-to-day activities much, but they may be able to consider planting some species now that they wouldn’t have considered a few decades ago.

ZISKA: If you want to see, in a simple way, how climate change has altered amateur gardening, just look at how plant hardiness zones (the different colors on the back of a package of seeds) have changed since 1990. Read more at wisciblog.com

In the Washington Post online's opinion pages, dated Friday Feb 25, Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network, describes the measures that he is taking to prepare for an increasingly likely scenario of system disruption resulting from climate change.

I know several people who have concluded that things are likely to get much worst and are preparing with similar measures. Some have bolt holes in the mountains and a few are stockpiling weapons. Many are edging towards food self sufficiency by ramping up gardening or working out energy self-sufficiency options.

Measures to prepare for the worst may be prudent, but they aren't sufficient. There's probably some correlation between personal security measures and a sense of the absence of resilience in a community. The only meaningful way to prepare for the worst when it becomes a chronic problem is to work with your neighbors to improve the resilience of your community. What can you do?

Well in the first instance, it would be useful to assess your vulnerabilities - where your community is not likely to spring back easily after a shock. And although I have not yet developed such an analytical tool, I think that it is safe to say that many of us live within a system of systems that is very precise, and finely balanced - think "just in time" delivery of necessities. Last winter the Manchester Guardian, reporting on the difficulty of stocking shelves after heavy snows, warned that the region was "nine meals from anarchy".

Our system is so finely tuned that a failure in one component easily leads to cascading failures, culminating in a complete breakdown in social order such as was seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit.

Brothers and sisters, better locks on your doors, hidey holes in the mountains, and a generator may make you feel secure. But in the long term, will you be more secure? Will your community close ranks and help one another? Or is it every man for himself where you live? Women, do you agree? How then do we respond? That's the challenge.

Amplify’d from www.washingtonpost.com

As a longtime environmental activist, I was deeply alarmed by new studies on global warming, so I went all out. I did my part.

Now I'm changing my life again. Today, underneath the solar panels, there's a new set of deadbolt locks on all my doors. There's a new Honda GX390 portable power generator in my garage, ready to provide backup electricity. And last week I bought a starter kit to raise tomatoes and lettuce behind barred basement windows. Read more at www.washingtonpost.com

The Sustainable Cities Collective blog carries a post today about a German effort to identify the trees most likely to thrive in tomorrow's environment. Obviously, models show different conditions for different places. What trees will thrive in African cities, for example, where they often provide essential shade and shelter?

It is issues like this that are likely to be overlooked when we think about climate adaptation. Without people of vision like Klaus Körber, no one will pay attention to trees until theirs are dying, at which point it is a little too late to plan.

Philips, the electronics conglomerate, has a competition underway for its "Livable Cities" award. One of the finalists, James Kitoya, proposes creating 45 ‘Shade Stands’ across Uganda’s capital, Kampala, to provide such shelter. (Sadly, it is running last in the voting).

The streets of Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, are lined with shade trees. Photo courtesy of Guillaume and Pauline via Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons with some rights reserved (non-commercial use only, attribution required, no derivative works).

 

One thing that troubles me about the discussions of good tree species to use is that there doesn't appear to be any thought of invasiveness. For example, in the Sustainable Cities Collective article, Ailanthus is mentioned as a very "resistant" species. Is Ailanthus the tree of the future? Perhaps, but let's not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy just yet - it is highly invasive and corrosive to natural systems in North America (evidently less so in Europe). It undermines the resiliency of natural habitats by replacing a diverse system with monotypical stands (it is allelopathic). Nothing grows under it, it is almost impossible to eradicate, and it colonizes quickly (in Washington DC it is called the "ghetto palm" because vacant lots in the inner city quickly fill with the palm-like shoots of this rapidly growing tree species).

So to plant Ailanthus is in a sense to opt for the "nuclear option". Not to say it isn't the right choice - but it is important to chose deliberately and carefully and to know what you're getting, because there's no turning back.

What other features contribute to resilient cities that are being overlooked?

 

 

Amplify’d from sustainablecitiescollective.com

"Climate change will not leave the green lungs of our cities untouched. We already know that some species will not get along with the associated weather extremes in the long run, "said Klaus Körber of the Bavarian State Institute for Viticulture and Horticulture in Veitshöchheim, Germany.

With the predicted increase in extreme weather events the following aspects have to be considered more in the selection of trees: • a firm fastening in the ground by a strong root system, • the danger of wind damage and falling branches, • the regeneration by shoots after storm damage and • an extensive root system to prevent soil erosion.

Another important aspect: drought stressed plants are more susceptible to disease. "With the globalization of trade the infestation of plants with new diseases and pests is enormous. Previously robust, local species can be infected, too, "said Körber. According to the expert, it must be the goal, not always put on the same five or six main tree species, but to increase the diversity. "Only a broad base of suitable plant species and varieties reduces the risk that more new diseases and pests reduce the available range." With this claim there have been problems in the past by the debate on nature conservation and autochthony. Also exotic, recommended species and varieties often weren’t available in the nurseries because there was little reliable demand from the municipalities. "For the city trees of the future, it will not be about which species have been growing here before, but what types thrive right under the changed conditions and work good as the green lungs of our cities in the long run," stressed Körber. "And for the nursery the change to new species on the one hand is a challenge, but on the other hand, it’s a great opportunity!"

Extremely resistant to the urban climate are trees such as Ginkgo, Gleditsia Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus), Honey Berry (Celtis australis), Turkish Hazel (Corylus colurna) and Sophora. "But from past experience one shouldn’t not put too much on such exotica,” Körber stated. “First, in their homeland a number of diseases and pests exists that could follow their hosts. Second, there are significant differences between cultivars with respect to the resistance, too. Third, the growth form in some cases doesn’t meet the requirements of a street tree." Generally, the proportion of a certain tree species in a city should never be too high. Read more at sustainablecitiescollective.com

There's been a spate of coverage from the AAAS conference on the subject of environmental refugees, stemming from a figure given of 50 million by 2020. An expression made popular by Lester Brown, it refers to people to migrate due to deteriorating environmental conditions.

There's been some push-back from the chattering classes about that figure - some think that there are already that many, some very cynical about any news of hardship coming out of Africa in particular. We may have ourselves to thank for this - there's no doubt in my mind but that there is a scale of tragedy such that the farther away an event is, the greater the body count before it is newsworthy. (By that measure Australia should by rights need to be struck by a meteor before being mentioned in the US press - but hey, we speak distantly related languages and somewhat similar histories etc - yeah, you know what I'm talking about).

Back on point - I don't know the basis for the figure nor if it is credible. But common sense suggests that declining productivity and burgeoning demand translate into want, and there are consequences to this want. Drought-stricken populations on the move provides a great subject for a dystopian novel, but it makes for lousy reading in your morning paper. The race is on - can we put the chattering classes to work applying the vaunted human ingenuity to these problems before it is too late? Yeah, we've got a checklist for that - lessee,

cut the Agricultural Research Service, check
wipe out foreign aid. Oh yeah
halt climate change research. No brainer
eliminate job-throttling programs that cut back CO2 emissions? Now you're talking!

I've got it - let's give all those poor people Facebook and Twitter accounts. They can use them to find jobs ... when they migrate.

Maybe a better idea - let's just change places!

Amplify’d from www.physorg.com

"In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees," University of California, Los Angeles professor Cristina Tirado said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

"When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate," she continued, outlining with the other speakers how climate change is impacting both food security and food safety, or the amount of food available and the healthfulness of that food.

Southern Europe is already seeing a sharp increase in what has long been a slow but steady flow of migrants from Africa, many of whom risk their lives to cross the Strait of Gibraltar into Spain from Morocco or sail in makeshift vessels to Italy from Libya and Tunisia.

The flow recently grew to a flood after a month of protests in Tunisia, set off by food shortages and widespread unemployment and poverty, brought down the government of longtime ruler Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, said Michigan State University professor Ewen Todd, who predicted there will be more of the same.

"What we saw in Tunisia -- a change in government and suddenly there are a whole lot of people going to Italy -- this is going to be the pattern," Todd told AFP.

"Already, Africans are going in small droves up to Spain, Germany and wherever from different countries in the Mediterranean region, but we're going to see many, many more trying to go north when food stress comes in. And it was food shortages that put the people of Tunisia and Egypt over the top.

"In many Middle Eastern and North African countries," he continued, "you have a cocktail of politics, religion and other things, but often it's just poor people saying 'I've got to survive, I've got to eat, I've got to feed my family' that ignites things." Read more at www.physorg.com

Minnesota legislator Mike Beard has faith in our resilience, and doesn't think God will let us destroy the planet. In an interview with Minnesota Post reporter Don Shelby, Beard is reported to say that he believes God has created an earth that will provide unlimited natural resources. He is working to overturn Minnesota's moratorium on coal-fired power plants.

" 'It is the height of hubris to think we could [destroy the earth],' Beard told MinnPost, before saying that even devastating nuclear events shouldn't cast doubt on his theory that the earth can always be repaired."

That's a relief! I thought he was going to say something stupid, like that climate change can't devastate our economy and our way of life. In fact, it appears as if nukes could be a corrective. Shall we experiment? Minnesota, we're looking for a volunteer...

Amplify’d from www.minnpost.com

He said: "How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki work out? We destroyed that, but here we are, 60 years later and they are tremendously effective and livable cities. Yes, it was pretty horrible," he said, "But, can we recover? Of course we can." Read more at www.minnpost.com

reposting from my old blog, www.green-hand.net, which I'm phasing out.

Lester Brown thinks so.  And will it burst?  Interviewed in New Scientist on February 10 he describes a food bubble as inflated food production through unsustainable uses of water and land.  Let’s set aside unsustainable uses of water and land for a moment.  In my February 15 post on The Resilient World I discussed how invasive species, including noxious weeds, could thrive in an atmosphere with elevated CO2 levels, substantially reducing agricultural productivity.  This is on top of the probability of stresses to crops from higher temperatures and changing weather patterns.  Throw in growing demand through a growing population and competing uses for land and water, and well, let’s just say that we have some work to do.

Zeroing in on unsustainable water use, Brown calls our attention to the fact that 130 million people in China and 175 million people in India depend upon fossil water, from aquifers that will not be replenished, to grow the grain they eat.  Some call the phenomenon “peak water.”  (We can add this to the list of things to keep us up at night along with peak oil and peak phosphorus).

Is Brown a prophet of doom and gloom?  Well, he certainly does pull back the curtain and what he shows isn’t pretty. But like the ghost of Christmas pass, his message is one of choices, some of which lead to redemption.  Our job must be to build resilience into our systems.  “Civilisation as we know it”,  Brown cautions “can't withstand the stresses of continuing with business as usual.”

Brown stays on point:  We've got to move, almost on a war footing, to cut carbon emissions, eradicate poverty, stabilise population. We must also restore the economy's natural support systems: forests and aquifers and soils. No civilisation ever survived that kind of destruction; nor will ours. We haven't gone over the edge, but we're much closer than most people think. If the heatwave that hit Moscow in 2010 had been centred on Chicago instead, we would be in deep trouble. The Russians lost 40 per cent of their 100-million-tonne grain crop, but we would have lost 40 per cent of our 400-million-tonne crop - a massive global setback.” (New Scientist Feb 10 2011).

So how do we build resilience? That’s the harder question.  A smaller footprint. Maintaining fallback options when systems fail.  Removal of perverse incentives. Better and more informed choices.    One strategy involves harnessing the marketplace through product labeling.  Most of us have seen plenty of product labels. Underwriter Laboratories (in the USA). Organic and Fair Trade certifications.  Forest Stewardship Council wood products and Marine Stewardship fish products.  The Alliance for Water Stewardship is creating a labeling scheme for sustainable water management.  I don’t want to claim that certifying water supplies is actually going to solve the peak water challenge worldwide.  What it can do, and should do, is provide the nucleus for resilient communities and regions using the principle of sustainable water management as an organizing theme.  This is how you build the future - a brick at a time, at least until episodes of rapid change occur. Read more at www.green-hand.net

The link between global warming and the spread of invasive species is real.  But authorities responsible for food security and natural resource management are either unaware of the linkages between  invasiveness and climate change, or are aware of the  linkages and view that the science as inconclusive. Not enough  attention is being given to the potential risks to food systems, water supply, energy production and biodiversity as a result of climate change.  And no climate model considers the impact of weeds on crop yield in the face of climate change.

Plants can respond to climate change in several ways; temperature, precipitation, available light, and CO2 levels all affect plant growth patterns.  Plants are adapted to different environmental conditions, and the composition of species will change according to the combination of climatic factors.  90% of all living matter consists of plant life, so a perturbation in plants due to climate has potentially broad ramifications for ecosystem services and life support systems.

Presently, 96% of all plant species lack optimal CO2.  All plants do not respond equally to elevated levels of CO2, however.  Plants with C4 photosynthesis are more efficient users of existing levels of CO2 and will not respond as well to elevated CO2 levels as will plants with C3 photosynthesis.  Initial evidence suggests that in elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, C3 weeds could be preferentially selected, potentially resulting in weed species dominance and concomitant reduction in crop yields. Response to CO2 is independent of nitrogen requirements, meaning that more efficient users of nitrogen may be better able to take advantage of elevated atmospheric CO2.  Elevated atmospheric CO2 levels will favor vegetative reproduction (rhizomes, runners or stolons, suckers, bulbs corms etc) over sexual reproduction through seeds and spores; weedy vines can be expected to become an increasing problem.

Rising minimum winter temperatures are expected to reduce the range of some species and expand the range of others.  In temperate climates, this will favor invasive weed species.  

CO2 increases biomass of some invasive weedy plants.  In temperate regions, the range of invasive weedy plants will expand.  The implications of more invasive plants over a wider range include:

• potential for increased evapotranspiration

• potential for increased fuel loads and risk of wildfire

• reduction in crop yields due to increased competition

loss in biodiversity due to increased competition, changes in  wildlife habitat affecting climate-sensitive species

Not only can CO2 result in reduced crop yield and water loss due to weeds, but the ability to control weeds is itself impaired.  The efficacy of glyphosphate, an important agricultural herbicide for weed control, is reduced as CO2 increases.  Mechanical control will be problematic when conditions favor vegetative propagation that can be enhanced through mechanical disturbance.

Adaptive management is needed.  Models must be developed for land managers and new management strategies produced in consultation with stakeholders.  Early warning systems can aid in effective responses to biological invasions, but investment in control and management of invasive weed species is necesssary. In some cases, control of such species could include biomass energy applications, creating new opportunities.  All this requires additional investment in science, management tools, and public information.

Much attention has been given to hazard reduction and disaster response in view of changing climatic conditions.  With the exception of the role of ecological resilience as a mitigating factor in natural disaster, the biological dimensions of climate change have been largely ignored.  But the biological dimensions extend far beyond the response to acute episodic events such as storms, floods, fire and drought.  The biological dimensions that are chronic and persistent, in the form of changing plant communities and plant behaviors, have the potential to undermine food security, health and water supply.  To be comprehensive, adaptation measures must better address impacts on plants.

(photo: invasive vines causing deforestation of the interior of Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Photo credit: John Waugh, use with attribution authorized).

On the other hand, Miami looks like a new Florida Key...

Amplify’d from www.eurekalert.org

See more at www.eurekalert.org

It's well established that cumulative impacts on reefs destroy resiliency - the ability to recover from a perturbation. It didn't take greenhouse gases to send many reefs into a death spiral. But acidification of the oceans (as they absorb atmospheric CO2) is a major stressor. Reefs worldwide have already been weakened from land-based sources of marine pollution (nutrient and chemical runoff from agriculture, sediments, sewage, oil etc), physical disturbance, and overfishing. Not to mention coral bleaching tied to rising sea-surface temperatures.

A suite of international agreements addresses these problems, including the Jakata "mandate" of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the non-binding Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, both from the mid-1990s (I was an observer at both negotiations working behind the scenes to promote stronger commitments).

If we want to protect reefs, we must redouble our efforts to protect the marine environment as a whole.

The irony is that coral reefs are critical for the resilience of many coastlines. They attenuate wave force and building beaches, and provide food and livelihoods. Localized impacts (pollution, overfishing) undermine the ability to withstand globalized impacts (high temperatures, acidified oceans).

I can only conclude that resilience and "business as usual" are incompatible, both for small island developing states in the tropics and for industrialized states bearing the bulk of the responsibility for CO2 emissions. But guess who's going to feel the greatest pain?

Amplify’d from www.physorg.com

Modelling by a team led by Dr Ken Anthony of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland's Global Change Institute has found that reefs already overfished and affected by land runoff are likely to be more vulnerable to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Read more at www.physorg.com