An observation by Robert Horton more than 90-years ago gave birth to a discipline that is providing some meaningful insights today about our place on this watery planet
Fantastic read! It brings to mind a recent opinion paper in HESS by Gao et al (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2607-2023) that questions our reliance on soils in our hydrologic models. It suggests we instead start with the terrestrial ecosystem because it manipulates the soil, rather than the reverse. Thanks again, loving your posts!
Dan - thanks. That is a really interesting refernce. I have been kind of talking into the wind about this for years. One of these days I will do a post on the fact that most soil water data, like storage and infltration were developed from USDA data - from cropland and pastures. We don't actually have "reference" soils data from natural landscapes. Great to hear from you and I hope grad school is going well!
What do we do when mans use of fire has so altered the vegetative climax and therefore altered hydrological models? When this is in no way a product of millions of years of evolution but now seen by many as a necessity? In my mind the restoration toward this climatic occupation which helps create stability is the main path forward but many people seem blind to the potential it offers. Many thanks
I was just talking to Mike from global nature beat about Ficus bridges in northern India
Hi Mike I have been planting fig bridges of another type, to feed , hydrate and fire proof our riparian, mangrove and coastal habitats around northern Sydney and beyond. They provide an essential food source and habitat for both land and sea and have been all but lost due to many years of fire and land clearing. Ficus rubiginosa and Ficus macrophylla are our two main natives. It all started of all places in New Zealand where i was watching fish feed on dropping fruit then locally watching crabs feed in the mangroves on what the tide leaves behind.
I tend to think of this as trying to attain the level of stability and resilience you have talked about. There are vast sections of agricultural America with no riparian trees so it is definitely something to think about
Conor - if you go to my first post on the Compromises of Green Infrastructure (https://scottdierks.substack.com/p/coming-soon?r=ga2fr) , there are four pictures of projects I helped model, design and monitor. For about 25-years now I have been doing this for landscape restoration projects and green stormwater infrastructure - rain gardens, bioretention basins, etc. I have grown pretty frustrated with the green infrastructure field, particularly engineers, who don't really care about the plant part - the actual green part. I started compiling research on how plants change soil properties, increasing soil water storage and infiltration to try and get the designers and regulators to better credit what plants do. I have also had the opportunity on several projects to monitor and compare infiltration rates between manicured landscapes, like lawns, prairies, rain gardens and forests. But I have not really been able to "move the needle" in any meaningful way in terms of changing the practice. It has been frustrating. Then I started to expand my reading and research outside of this narrow realm. This research has really blown my mind. So what I have been trying to do with this Substack is to say to my field: "Hey - you are missing the forest for the trees!". Literally. I don't know where this or I go, I would like to move this into another realm, some kind of application of these ideas, but what, how and when I just don't know yet. I mean it bears on my work now, but not in the manner or scale I am hoping for.
Thank you! Keep up the good work. I like infiltration measurements because they are simple experiments with profound implications. Plus, they can be scaled up to directly quantify and justify project cost/benefits.
I completely agree, but what has been a hard sell to regulators/communities is to say: look, if I plant this landscape with natives, prairies, trees, etc. instead of, say, turfgrass, I want you to give us credit for that increased infiltration up front so we consume less land in stormwater detention basin and reduce overall environmental impact - less water, nutrients and pesticides. Except for changing curve numbers in runoff calculations, no one's willing to change policy in this manner. Saving or restoring these landscapes is SO undervalued, it makes me crazy.
Alpha - Interesting. I will have alot more to say about this in upcoming posts. You and I are approaching this problem from different perspectives which should make for an fascinating discussion going forward! I look forward to it!
Fantastic read! It brings to mind a recent opinion paper in HESS by Gao et al (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2607-2023) that questions our reliance on soils in our hydrologic models. It suggests we instead start with the terrestrial ecosystem because it manipulates the soil, rather than the reverse. Thanks again, loving your posts!
Dan - thanks. That is a really interesting refernce. I have been kind of talking into the wind about this for years. One of these days I will do a post on the fact that most soil water data, like storage and infltration were developed from USDA data - from cropland and pastures. We don't actually have "reference" soils data from natural landscapes. Great to hear from you and I hope grad school is going well!
What do we do when mans use of fire has so altered the vegetative climax and therefore altered hydrological models? When this is in no way a product of millions of years of evolution but now seen by many as a necessity? In my mind the restoration toward this climatic occupation which helps create stability is the main path forward but many people seem blind to the potential it offers. Many thanks
I agree! In my small way hoping to make the possibility and necessity of restoration something more can visualize and support.
I was just talking to Mike from global nature beat about Ficus bridges in northern India
Hi Mike I have been planting fig bridges of another type, to feed , hydrate and fire proof our riparian, mangrove and coastal habitats around northern Sydney and beyond. They provide an essential food source and habitat for both land and sea and have been all but lost due to many years of fire and land clearing. Ficus rubiginosa and Ficus macrophylla are our two main natives. It all started of all places in New Zealand where i was watching fish feed on dropping fruit then locally watching crabs feed in the mangroves on what the tide leaves behind.
I tend to think of this as trying to attain the level of stability and resilience you have talked about. There are vast sections of agricultural America with no riparian trees so it is definitely something to think about
Theodore -sorry I missed this. It is a lovely image of the figs feeding the fish feeding the crabs.
I’d love to hear more about how you work with roots, habitats, streams, and land cover, can you share examples?
Conor - if you go to my first post on the Compromises of Green Infrastructure (https://scottdierks.substack.com/p/coming-soon?r=ga2fr) , there are four pictures of projects I helped model, design and monitor. For about 25-years now I have been doing this for landscape restoration projects and green stormwater infrastructure - rain gardens, bioretention basins, etc. I have grown pretty frustrated with the green infrastructure field, particularly engineers, who don't really care about the plant part - the actual green part. I started compiling research on how plants change soil properties, increasing soil water storage and infiltration to try and get the designers and regulators to better credit what plants do. I have also had the opportunity on several projects to monitor and compare infiltration rates between manicured landscapes, like lawns, prairies, rain gardens and forests. But I have not really been able to "move the needle" in any meaningful way in terms of changing the practice. It has been frustrating. Then I started to expand my reading and research outside of this narrow realm. This research has really blown my mind. So what I have been trying to do with this Substack is to say to my field: "Hey - you are missing the forest for the trees!". Literally. I don't know where this or I go, I would like to move this into another realm, some kind of application of these ideas, but what, how and when I just don't know yet. I mean it bears on my work now, but not in the manner or scale I am hoping for.
Thank you! Keep up the good work. I like infiltration measurements because they are simple experiments with profound implications. Plus, they can be scaled up to directly quantify and justify project cost/benefits.
I completely agree, but what has been a hard sell to regulators/communities is to say: look, if I plant this landscape with natives, prairies, trees, etc. instead of, say, turfgrass, I want you to give us credit for that increased infiltration up front so we consume less land in stormwater detention basin and reduce overall environmental impact - less water, nutrients and pesticides. Except for changing curve numbers in runoff calculations, no one's willing to change policy in this manner. Saving or restoring these landscapes is SO undervalued, it makes me crazy.
There attempts to model rain-runoff with nonlinear dynamics models. There's some evidence that it behaves with chaotic strange attractors. See my essay https://climatewaterproject.substack.com/p/how-does-rain-turn-into-floods-a
Alpha - Interesting. I will have alot more to say about this in upcoming posts. You and I are approaching this problem from different perspectives which should make for an fascinating discussion going forward! I look forward to it!