- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- archaeology@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- archaeology@mander.xyz
You must log in or register to comment.
Abstract
Fertile soil known as Amazonian dark earth is central to the debate over the size and ecological impact of ancient human populations in the Amazon. Dark earth is typically associated with human occupation, but it is uncertain whether it was created intentionally. Dark earth may also be a substantial carbon sink, but its spatial extent and carbon inventory are unknown. We demonstrate spatial and compositional similarities between ancient and modern dark earth and document modern Indigenous practices that enrich soil, which we use to propose a model for the formation of ancient dark earth. This comparison suggests that ancient Amazonians managed soil to improve fertility and increase crop productivity. These practices also sequestered and stored carbon in the soil for centuries, and we show that some ancient sites contain as much carbon as the above-ground rainforest biomass. Our results demonstrate the intentional creation of dark earth and highlight the value of Indigenous knowledge for sustainable rainforest management.
biochar is taking it’s time to be widely applied, not
muchmany in the permaculture and regeneration circles in my region use ita wide scale colaboration could enable a strategy of long term carbon storage through soil sequestration, given other regeneration practices are also present
not even going off that “it’s not enough”, i fear biochar could be touted as some “miraculous solution” in the future and be used by profit-seekers and myopic policy-makers in a way that will fuel further deforestation, like with biomass energy
The big potential for biochar is soil improvement for subsistence farmers, using surplus biomass in situ. So decentralized and highly local. This needs nonprofits delivering pyrolysis retorts to rural communities in large numbers and also providing training, as compost tea inoculation and anaerobic incubation prior to deployment into the soil.
Advantage is less costs since less fertilizer use and higher agricultural yields – if it’s obvious enough the practice will stick and self-perpetuate. But initial effort is very significant.
The big potential for biochar is soil improvement for subsistence farmers, using surplus biomass in situ. So decentralized and highly local.
But initial effort is very significant.
exactly!
This needs nonprofits delivering pyrolysis retorts to rural communities in large numbers and also providing training…
i am so far away from any decision making position of this nature, but this is what i’ve been thinking we collectively need to restore soil and local sustainability
where i live, there is a huge and growing wildfire risk and so public policy is to “erase” undergrowth from the landscape by tilling/buldozzing and burning it. in the quest to retain some of that massive vanishing organic matter, some have been advocating public policy such as what you described but with shredders instead of biochar retorts, since the composting way of feeding soil is much more widespread in the thoughts of the ecologically-minded
although a great tactic in the arsenal, and a huge step forward compared to the present, i fear that simply throwing shredded wood and sticks into the ground, as has been done in some industrial agriculture efforts to reduce ecological damage, will still waste huge amounts of carbon to oxidation given the conditions where such decomposition will happen. has this crossed your mind? if so, i’d like to read your opinion on it
thanks for your reply, i’ve saved the comment for posterity since you so well articulated and summarized things that have been bothering me
