Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at bukyunn@gmail.com.

At www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. www.green-peace-action.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.

Acacia Fertility Protocol

Months ago I posted that the acacia tree needed to be integrated into agriculture to provide cover and support the use of the Eden machine to provide additional water.  See my posts on the Eden machine concept.

It turns out from this that the acacia will be integrated with crop land generally anyway as a great way to improve fertilization.  If they add in biochar soils, then it will likely be much better than that.

This odd protocol should also be tested out elsewhere wherever semi arid lands are in semi tropical conditions.  It is that promising.

Scientists Find That Evergreen Agriculture Boosts Crop Yields

by Staff Writers

The Hague, Netherlands (SPX) Nov 05, 2010

Farmers in Malawi have increased their maize yields by up to 280 percent when the crop is grown under a canopy of one particular fertilizing tree, Faidherbia albida. Unlike most other trees, Faidherbia sheds its leaves during the early rainy season and remains dormant during the crop-growing period.

http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/Scientists_Find_That_Evergreen_Agriculture_Boosts_Crop_Yields_999.html

A unique acacia known as a "fertilizer tree" has typically led to a doubling or tripling of maize yields in smallholder agriculture in Zambia and Malawi, according to evidence presented at a conference in the Hague this week.

The findings were central to the arguments of agroforestry experts at the conference, who urged decision makers to spread this technology more widely throughout the African nations most vulnerable to climate change and food shortages, and to think differently about more practical ways to solve the problems that are most pressing to smallholder farmers.

Speaking today at The Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change, Dr. Dennis Garrity, Director General of the World Agroforestry Centre, said that evergreen agriculture-or the integration of fertilizer trees into crop and livestock-holding farms-is rapidly emerging as an affordable and accessible solution to improving production on Africa's farms.

"Doubling food production by mid-century, particularly in Africa, will require nonconventional approaches, particularly since so many of the continent's soils are depleted, and farmers are faced with a changing climate," Garrity said. "We need to reinvent agriculture in a sustainable and affordable way, so that it can reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases and be adapted to climate change."

Garrity spoke to leading agriculture and climate scientists, policymakers, development experts, and private sector representatives from around the world gathered at The Hague to develop a concrete action plan for linking agriculture-related investments, policies, and measures to transition agriculture to lower carbon-emitting, climate-resilient growth.

In a recent article in Food Security, Garrity and co-authors highlighted how evergreen agriculture has already provided benefits to several million farmers in Zambia, Malawi, Niger and Burkina Faso. Fertilizer trees draw nitrogen from the air and transfer it to the soil through their roots and leaf litter, replenishing exhausted soils with rich sources of organic nutrients.

The trees bolster nutrient supply, increase food crop yields, and enhance the production of fodder, fuel and timber. These systems also provide additional income to farmers from tree products, while at the same time storing much greater amounts of carbon than other agricultural systems.

For example, farmers in Malawi have increased their maize yields by up to 280 percent when the crop is grown under a canopy of one particular fertilizing tree, Faidherbia albida. Unlike most other trees, Faidherbia sheds its leaves during the early rainy season and remains dormant during the crop-growing period.

This makes it highly compatible with food crops because it does not compete with them for water, nutrients, or light-only the bare branches of the tree's canopy spread overhead while crops of maize, sorghum, or millets grow to maturity below.

The leaves and pods also provide a crucial source of fodder in the dry season for livestock when nearly all other plants have dried up. The trees may continue to provide these cost-free benefits for up to 70 to 100 years.

In Niger, there are now more than 4.8 million hectares of millet and sorghum being grown in agroforests that have up to 160 Faidherbia trees on each hectare.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has already noted that transforming degraded agricultural lands into agroforestry has far greater potential to store carbon than any other managed land use change.

Researchers suggest that integrating agroforestry into farming systems on a massive scale would create a vital carbon bank. The IPCC estimates that a billion hectares of developing country farmland is suitable for conversion to carbon agroforestry projects.

A broad alliance is now emerging of governments, research institutions, and international and local development partners committed to expanding evergreen agriculture and agroforestry.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, the European Union, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, and the UN Environment Programme are among those interested in developing partnerships to move the evergreen agriculture agenda forward.

"We are already working with 18 countries across the African continent to develop national plans for the accelerated implementation of evergreen agriculture," Garrity explained.

The next step is to further refine and adapt the technologies to a wider range of smallholder farming systems in diverse agricultural environments, so that millions more farmers can benefit now and for generations to come from such sustainable solutions to their food production challenges.

"Evergreen agriculture allows us to glimpse a future of more environmentally-sound farming where much of our annual food crop production occurs under a full canopy of trees," said Garrity.

Medusa Head Threatens Range Land

This is as always an unwelcome story.  This plant obviously needs to be properly countered and will be difficult to avoid reintroducing back attached as seeds to cattle and blue jeans.

It really needs a natural enemy that destroys it.

It appears to be no particular threat to cropland, most likely because it can be reduced by tilling and if necessary with roundup.  At least in these items, no one is complaining.

However rangeland does not get that form of intensive treatment.  It seems obvious that burning out thickets fairly often could help and it is something a ranch could undertake without been excessive.

Otherwise, can we harvest the stuff as some form of useable biomass before it goes to seed?

Our problem is that it cannot be eaten.

Maybe we need to introduce perennial grasses that can hold is at bay until it is eliminated Perhaps we really have a use for couch grass that after all loads the soil with roots and starves out competition.  At least cattle can eat it.

Invasive grass threatens U.S. grazing land

by Staff Writers

Corvallis, Ore. (UPI) Nov 11, 2010 

http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/Invasive_grass_threatens_US_grazing_land_999.html

An invasive species of "devil" weed in range lands in the western United States could make millions of acres of grazing land worthless, researchers say.

Researchers at Oregon State University say the weed knows as medusahead has growth advantages over most other grass species that could allow it to continue to spread across much of the West and disrupt native ecosystems, a university release said Thursday.

Their study comparing the "relative growth rate" of this invasive annual grass to that of other competing species in natural field conditions found that medusahead has a faster growth rate, a longer period of growth and produced more total biomass than any native grasses.

"Medusahead is now spreading at about 12 percent a year over 17 western states," Seema Mangla, a researcher in the OSU College of Forestry, said. "Once established, it's very hard to get rid of.

"It displaces native grasses and even other invasive species that animals can still eat," she said.

"This is a devil species," she said.

Native to the Mediterranean region, medusahead was imported to the United States in the late 1880s.

The sharp and twisting points on the tips of medusahead can injure animals and give the plant its name, based on the female monster in Greek mythology who had hair composed of writhing snakes.

The plant takes up other soil resources and its deep root system soaks up limited moisture. It creates fuel for wildfires, is virtually inedible and prevents many other plants from germinating, researchers say.

Experts at the Oregon Department of Agriculture say once land is invaded by medusahead, it becomes largely worthless, incapable of supporting native animals, birds or livestock.

Taeniatherum caput-medusae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taeniatherum_caput-medusae

Taeniatherum caput-medusae is a species of grass known by the common name medusahead. This aggressive winter annual grass is changing the ecology of western rangelands in North America.^[1] Forty-eight percent of the total land area of the United States is rangeland,pastureland, national parks, nature preserves, and other wildlands. These lands are essential for agriculture and for protecting the integrity of ecological systems. Natural areas contain many nonnative plant species that occur as self-sustaining populations in the lower 48 of the United States, including medusahead. As of 2005, medusahead infested approximately 972,700 acres (3,936 km²) in the 17 western states (fromNorth Dakota south to Texas and west to the Pacific coast), and spreads at an average rate of 12% per year.^[2] As medusahead spreads, it outcompetes native vegetation, reduces land value, and creates a wildfire hazard.

History and origin

Medusahead was first described in the United States in Oregon in 1903 as Elymus caput-medusae by Thomas Howell. Nevski recommended in 1934 that the Russian types of medusahead should be classified in a separate genus, Taeniatherum. In the 1960s, it was suggested by Jack Major of the University of California that there are three geographic and morphologically distinct taxa: T. caput-medusae, T. asperum, and T. crinitum. After traveling in Russia, Major thought the proper classification for the plant introduced to North America was Taeniatherum asperum. The genus was revised in 1986 by the Danish scientist Signe Frederiksen. He made the previously mentioned distinct taxa into subspecies ofTaeniatherum caput-medusae.^[3]

The subspecies caput-medusae is a native species to Europe, and is mostly restricted to Spain, Portugal, southern France, Algeria, andMorocco. Subspecies crinitum is found from Greece and the Balkans east into Asia, and the range of subspecies asperum completely overlaps the other two subspecies.^[3]

In Asia, medusahead is widespread in Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, and in the northern portion of Israel, inhabiting low mountains and plateau areas. It is both an agronomic and rangelandweed. It prefers soils rich in nitrogen, and is often found on stony or gravelly soils. Carbonized seeds of this weed have been found in early agricultural archaeological sites in Iran. Seeds were first found in strata corresponding to the early days of sheep and goat husbandry.^[3]

[edit]Life Cycle and Growing Habits

Medusahead is a winter annual, germinating in the fall and undergoing root growth in the winter and early spring. Since its roots develop early and reach deep in the soil, it outcompetesnative plants for moisture. It flowers in early spring, and by June or July its seeds, which are covered with tiny barbs, are mature. The barbs help the seeds attach to livestock, humans or vehicles that pass by. As the grass grows it accumulates silica, making it unpalatable to livestock except for early in its life cycle. It creates a dense layer of litter, and because of the silica content, the litter decomposes more slowly than that of other plants. This litter suppresses native plant growth while encouraging the germination of its own seed, and after a few years it creates an enormous load of dry fuel that can lead to devastating wildfires.^[1]

Stands of medusahead vary in density from several hundred to 2,000 plants per square foot. This variance is directly related to annual precipitation, soil type, and other vegetation in the area. Research has suggested that medusahead is highly adaptable and can produce more seeds at a density of one plant per square foot than 1,000 plants per square foot.^[1] Since it matures later than most other annuals, it is easy to identify as it is often bright green when the other annuals are brown. As it matures, it turns shades of purple and eventually tan.^[1]

Medusahead seeds disperse relatively short distances and dispersal decreases as distance from the plant increases. Seeds are very well adapted for dispersal by adhesion to moving objects. The relatively long period of medusahead seed dispersal from July to October may be an adaptation to increase the likelihood of adhesion to animals.^[4]

[edit]Identification

Medusahead ranges in height from 20 to 60 centimeters.^[5] It has slender, weak stems that often branch at the base. It has spike inflorescences similar to those of wheat or rye. Thelemmas have long awns and the glumes have shorter ones, giving the seed head a layered look.^[6] As the awns dry, they twist and spread in all directions, similar to the snake-covered head of the mythological Medusa. The barbs on the awns help the seed drive into the soil.^[7] The grainlike seed may remain viable in the soil for a number of years.^[1]

[edit]Effects on Wildlife and Grazing

The grazing capacity of land infested with medusahead can be reduced by up to 80%.^[8] Wildlife habitat and biodiversity also suffer, and the weed can eventually lead to alterations in ecosystem functions. The impact medusahead can have on species relying on sagebrush is rarely mentioned. It can exacerbate the decline of sage-grouse (genus Centrocercus) as it replaces plant communities that provide critical habitat for the bird.^[8]

Other species, such as mule deer and chukar partridges, tend to avoid areas overrun with medusahead because it is not a good food source. In the case of mule deer, a study in Oregon found that even though extensive stands of medusahead were available, those areas (when compared to other plant communities) were least preferred by feeding mule deer in winter, summer, and fall; and they ranked low in the spring. This decrease in feeding was related back to the dominance of medusahead, which deer do not eat, and the subsequent lack offorbs.^[9] Chukar partridges will ingest medusahead caryopses if given no other choice. However, if they are given free access to all the medusahead caryopses they will eat, they suffered from a significant loss in body weight. Largely undamaged caryopses were found in their droppings, suggesting that the digestibility of medusahead by the birds was low.^[10]

[edit]Control Methods

No single control method will eradicate medusahead. For best results, it is often necessary use a form of integrated pest management that combines two or more of the following methods.

[edit]Mechanical

Plowing and disking are two methods of mechanical control. Both methods can effectively control medusahead and can reduce infestation by 65% to 95% the next growing season. Eradication of medusahead by mechanical control by itself is nearly impossible, but when followed by chemical control or revegetation chances for eradication increase dramatically.^[1]

[edit]Burning

Fire is often considered a low cost method of improving rangeland condition. It has been given attention in the control of medusahead because many of the areas infested with it are too rocky or steep for other treatments. Control of medusahead with fire had differing results in California. In some areas, more desirable plant communities came back after a fire, while in other areas medusahead continued to dominate after fire. There are a few guidelines that should be followed when burning medusahead. The burn should be conducted when the seed is in the soft dough stage (when the seeds exude a milky substance when squeezed) in the late spring. The initial fire should be one that is slow burning, something that is easily achieved by burning into the wind. This prevents the fire from advancing too rapidly and ensures that the current year's herbage is burned and periods of maximum temperature are long enough to kill medusahead caryopses. Viable medusahead caryopses are found almost entirely in the litter and on the soil surface.^[11]

Past studies on the effectiveness of burning may have given researchers false hope. The caryopses have severe temperature dependent afterripening requirements which prevent seeds from germinating at temperatures above 10˚C for about 180 days after maturity. If these conditions are met, many medusahead caryopses from the litter and soil in burned plots were viable. Since the seeds did not germinate during the afterripening period, researchers were misled into believing they were accomplishing more by burning than was actually the case.^[11]

[edit]Chemical

Chemical control can be effective if used in conjunction with other control methods. Glyphosate (Roundup) applied at 0.375 lbs/acre in the early spring before seeds are produced can provide good results. This timing will also limit the damage to nontarget species that develop later in the growing season. Research suggests that burning before chemical application is more effective than chemicals alone.^[1] In the late 1960s, a study was conducted that determined the effectiveness of paraquat on medusahead control in different areas of the United States. This study found that paraquat was effective in controlling medusahead in California, but did not suppress the grass in Reno, Nevada. This was significant because it determined that there was no effective herbicide for the simultaneous spraying and reseeding of medusahead infestations .^[12]

[edit]Biological

Medusahead was found to be susceptible to certain root rot fungi including crown rot and take-all, but it was not susceptible to barepatch, browning root rot, and common root rot. The diseases did not reduce the overall weight of the roots, but take-all significantly reduced the overall dry weight of the aboveground shoots. Soil-borne pathogens can have a severe effect on grasses as long as the environmental conditions for the diseases are optimized. Take-all is associated with plants growing in high soil moisture, and like crown rot, it affected medusahead. In contrast, crown rot had the greatest impact on water-stressed plants and therefore may be an effective biological control of grassy weeds in the arid regions of the western U.S. It is also promising because it did not have a significant negative impact on desirable grasses such as western wheatgrass.^[13]

[edit]Grazing

Grazing alone is not a good method of medusahead control. For best results, grazing is used as part of an integrated program. It is an efficient management tool as long as the timing and duration of grazing are controlled properly. For example, if grazing is carried out in conjunction with revegetation, the desirable grasses must be established before the grazing can take place, otherwise the revegetation will be futile. In areas where desirable grasses have completed their life cycle by the winter or early spring, grazing during this time can help reduce medusahead. It should still be in a vegetative stage and therefore more palatable to livestock. Grazing in the late spring, summer, and fall is not recommended because it will give medusahead a competitive advantage as cattle graze species other than medusahead. If livestock grazing is a method used to control mature stands of medusahead, the livestock must be moved to a holding area for 10 days to two weeks and fed weed-free feed before they are moved to weed-free areas. This will prevent the seeds that pass through the animals from germinating in areas that are free of medusahead.^[1]

[edit]Restoration

Revegetation should be a part of any medusahead management plan. If medusahead is not first controlled, reseeding an infested area will not be successful. The existing medusahead has to be controlled and especially not allowed to produce more seed, and the seed bank in the soil also has to be reduced. This usually takes two or three years, depending on soil moisture and growing conditions. After this, seedling of desirable species can become established. Combining a tillage treatment followed by herbicide is most effective in controlling the weed and promoting desirable plant growth. Squirreltail, bluebunch wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, Thurber's needlegrass, needle and thread, Indian ricegrass,sandberg bluegrass, and sheep fescue are all competitive grasses that work well when renovating an area previously infested with medusahead in the western United States.^[1]

[edit]Prevention

Since medusahead seeds are often spread by adhering to humans, animals, and vehicles, it is recommended to restrict these kinds of traffic in infestations to prevent the spread of medusahead. Narrow containment zones of around 3 meters would successfully suppress the invasion of medusahead to surrounding areas.^[4]

Plant communities that have high densities of large perennial bunchgrasses are more resistant to medusahead invasion, so managing rangelands to promote and maintain large perennial bunchgrasses is critical to prevent the spread of medusahead. This will reduce the establishment of new infestations, but successful management will also require searching for and eradicating new infestations. Controlling new infestations is more effective, and oftentimes more feasible, than trying to control large infestations.^[8]

Even if attempts to prevent and control new infestations are not entirely successful, these efforts will slow the rate of spread and give researchers and land managers more time to develop better prevention, restoration, and control methods. Also, slowing the rate of invasion helps promote rangeland health and productivity in areas that are most at risk of invasion. Without an active prevention program, this weed will continue to spread and increase its negative ecological and economical impacts. Managing medusahead may seem expensive per acre, but when all the acres that are protected by managing an infestation are considered, the price is very reasonable. And, when taking into account the rising land prices, the cost of medusahead management to the individual livestock producer is rapidly becoming more reasonable compared to purchasing additional acreage to offset production losses from medusahead invasion.^[8]

[edit]References

1.      ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i} Zimmerman, J.R., et al. Medusahead: Economic Impact and Control in Nevada. University of Nevada-Reno Fact Sheet FS-02-37.

2.      ^ Duncan, C.A., et al. (2004). Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technology 18:1411-1416

3.      ^ ^a b c Kostivkovsky, V. and J. A. Young. (2000). Invasive exotic rangeland weeds: A glimpse at some of their native habitats. Rangelands 22:6 3-6.

4.      ^ ^a b Davies, K. W. (2008). Medusahead dispersal and establishment in sagebrush steppe plant communities. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61: 110-115.

5.      ^ Jepson Manual Treatment

6.      ^ Stubbendieck, J.L., et al. (2004). North American Wildland Plants: A Field Guide. University of Nebraska Press.

7.      ^ US Forest Service Fire Ecology

8.      ^ ^a b c d Davies, K.W. and D. D. Johnson. (2008). Managing medusahead in the intermountain west is at a critical threshold. Rangelands. 30:13-15

9.      ^ Bodurtha, T.S., et al. (1989). Mule deer habitat use related to succession in a bunchgrass community. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:2 314-319.

10.  ^ Savage, D.E., et al. (1969). Utilization of medusahead and downy brome caryopses by Chukar Partridges. The Journal of Wildlife Management 33:4 975-978.

11.  ^ ^a b Young, J.A., et al. (1972). Influence of repeated annual burning on a medusahead community. Journal of Range Management 25:5 372-375.

12.  ^ Young, J.A., et al. (1971). Response of medusahead to paraquat. Journal of Range Management 24:1 41-43.

13.  ^ Grey, W.E., et al. (1995). Potential for biological control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) with crown and root rot fungi.Weed Technology 9:2 362-365.