A Stand, a Grove, a Wood, or a Forest? A Discussion with Louise, the Natural Biologist

A "faggeta", a forest of beech trees in Abbadia San Salvadore, central Italy. 

By Mark Haubner

A Discussion with Louise, the Natural Biologist

Way back in 2021, my Drawdown East End teammates and I got together and, based on the
science of Drawdown, decided to embark on a program to plant trees in the five towns of our
Peconic Bioregion. Our imaginations took hold of us, and we decided that we would encourage
planting one tree for every man, woman, and child on our two forks—170,000 all told.

Gathering information and lining up our list of benefits brought me to asking a professional
environmental person for some input, so I met with Louise at a local coffee shop in Riverhead.

The conversation went something like this:

Louise, we’re very excited—we’re starting a program to plant 170,000 trees.

Where? she asked.

All over the entire region, some 2-3 trees on every home’s property, I replied.

That’s nice, she said.

But, I asked, isn’t this a great way to increase our trees and forests?

Not really, she said.

Why not? I asked.

They’re not all in the same place, came the answer.

What if we planted 100 trees together?

You’d have a stand.

What about 1000?

You’d have a grove.

What about 10,000.

You’d have a wood.

And 170,000 in one place?

Well, she admitted, that would be a forest. But you’d have to get back to me in 300 years to see
how you did.

_______________________________________________________________

Note: this post originated from a discussion on the Republican plan of planting a trillion trees (!!) to fight global warming (see NBC news). A desperate plan that would do nothing except damage. 

About Mark Haubner

Drawdown East End, Steering Committee
North Fork Environmental Council, President
North Fork Civics, Moderator
Riverhead Neighborhood Preservation Council, Member
Town of Riverhead Environmental Advisory Committee, Chair
Town of Riverhead Comp Plan Steering Committee, Member
Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality, Member
Taking A Lead on Zero Waste, Co-convener
 
UCAL San Diego, Sustainability & Behavior Change Certificate
MIT En-ROADS, Ambassador
Inspiring Transition, Catalyst
Creating the Future, Integrity Board, Member
Capra’s Systems View of Life, Alumni
CBSM Programs, Designer

Conserving old growth forests is key to stabilising the Earth’s climate

From the Blog of the Club of Rome




© Greatandaman | Dreamstime
By Ugo Bardi, member of The Club of Rome


02 May 2023 – Do forests create rain? It is a question that has been debated for a long time. We know that trees produce huge amounts of water vapor that is pumped from humidity in the ground and condensed into clouds that generate rain, but the mechanisms that govern condensation and vapor water movements are still not completely clear.

In our new paper, a group of researchers led by Anastassia Makarieva of the Theoretical Physics Division of Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI) and the Institute for Advanced Study of the Technical University of München (TUM) highlight how evapotranspiration – the evaporation of water by trees, modifies water vapor dynamics to generate high moisture content regimes that provide the rain needed by land ecosystems. The research is a significant step forward in understanding the critical need to conserve old-growth forests to stabilise the Earth’s climate and maintain the biodiversity needed for the ecosystem to survive.

The study titled “The role of ecosystem transpiration in creating alternate moisture regimes by influencing atmospheric moisture convergence” shows that two potential moisture regimes exist: one is drier, with additional moisture decreasing atmospheric moisture import, and one is wetter, with additional moisture enhancing atmospheric moisture import. In the drier regime, that may be caused by deforestation, water vapor behaves as a passive tracer following the air flow. In the wetter regime, it modifies atmospheric dynamics and amplifies the atmospheric moisture import, creating rain.

There is still much that we need to understand about these mechanisms, but we are starting to understand how forests and the atmosphere form a system of connected elements that affect each other. One thing is clear: forests are crucial to the stability of the Earth’s climate.

Not only do trees store carbon in a form that does not cause greenhouse warming, but they actively cool the planet, due to how moisture condensation is managed. Forests also control the water cycle on land, pumping water vapor from the oceans inland by a mechanism called the biotic pump. Old growth forests generate giant flows of water known as “flying rivers” that fertilise entire continents. Our study shows that the non-linear precipitation dependence on atmospheric moisture content has wide-ranging implications. Atmospheric water flows do not recognize international borders, meaning deforestation disrupting evapotranspiration in one region could trigger a transition to a drier regime in another.

Our results indicate that the Earth’s natural forests, in both high and low latitudes, are our common legacy of pivotal global importance, as they support the terrestrial water cycle. Their preservation should be a recognised priority for our civilisation to solve the global water crisis. Important on-going work calls for re-appraisal of the forest’s role in the global temperature regime.

The study was performed by an international research team that included scientists from North and South America, and Eastern and Western Europe.

Forests and History: A Tale of the Great Earth Holobiont

 

France seems to be the only area of the world for which "Our World in Data" has a complete dataset for forest cover for a long timespan -- it goes back to the year 1000 AD. Similar but less extensive data are available for a few other countries but, in most cases, the data cover only the past 30 years. 

I can't say how reliable these data are, but the curve for France makes a lot of sense if compared with the historical record. Note how the late Medieval expansion corresponds to a decline in forest cover. The crusades (1095 -1291) see deforestation continue. Then, the whole economic system collapses: the crusaders go back to Europe to find the land devastated first by famines, and then by the Black Death. It is said that some 30% of the European population disappeared. Forests, then, had a chance to recover and attain levels similar to those of the early Medieval period. 

Then, with the discovery of the New World, another cycle of expansion started. Population boomed, but the economic prosperity had to be paid, and in part was fueled, by another cycle of deforestation. It ended in mid 19th century with the start of a coal-based, industrial economy. Coal provided the same services as wood but at a lower cost, and that allowed the population to continue increasing without having to deforest the land. The trend continued with another cycle that started during the 20th century: the oil-based economy. The population rapidly shot upward, but deforestation didn't restart. 

In the 21st century, we see the trend continuing, at least in rich countries such as Europe. Forests are still growing, while the population has now plateaued, and it is starting to decline. Globally, deforestation is continuing, but the reversal is clear in several countries (source)

So, there may be ground for optimism: forests may be regrowing as the world goes through its demographic transition. It is an especially welcome trend, now that the link between forest cover and rainfall is being recognized (see a recent paper in Nature). 

But don't forget that the destruction of forests is always around the corner. During the Middle Ages, France had little more than ten million inhabitants, and yet it could raze its forests to the point of destroying its economy and causing some of the greatest famines in European history. We have been able to avoid this destiny, today, only because we have cheap energy from fossil fuels. Now that the fossil supply is dwindling, and with climate change looming as an even worse threat, we could see a new assault on forests, this time with the green label of "sustainable biofuels." 

We need to understand that we need forests not because we can use wood to power our SUVs, but because they are part of the great planetary holobiont that connects everything to everything else. They generate the "biotic pump" mechanism that brings rain to the land (see this recent paper by Makarieva et al.). If we lose the forests, we lose rain. And if we lose rain, we lose everything.  

 

Reflections on Controlled Burning and Water Management

 

By our fellow holobiont, Ian Schindler

 

I had the following to say about Ugo's post on controlled burning: I would like to point out that solutions are not unique. Controlled fires might work, but there are usually other ways to achieve the stated goals. For example David Holmgren lives in Australia, is very sensitive to fire management, and does so without resorting to controlled fires.

Good water management can go a long way to reducing the window of opportunity for fires. Good water management consists of storing water when there is excess rain and slowly letting out the storage when there is no rain.  This regulates the flow of water to the sea so that when it rains the flow is decreased and when it doesn't rain the flow is increased.  As a consequence, the variation of the water content in plants is decreased
decreasing the risk of fires because the plants are rarely dry.

Note that an excellent place to store water is the soil. The soil is the plant gut. A compost pile is a powerful concentration of the plant gut. The greater the biomass of the soil, the greater its water capacity is. A compost pile can absorb 90% of its dry weight in water. The mycelium of fungi maintain soil integrity in the case of high water content.

Note also that the plant holobiont is an excellent water purifier. Most of what we consider pollution in water ways is food for plants once it has been digested by the plant holobiont. This includes animal excrement, petro-chemicals, most pesticides and herbicides, and explosives. It does take time to digest some of this stuff which is why Joseph Jenkins  recommends curing compost for a year before applying it. Outside of a compost pile the digestion will be slower, however sending water throughwetlands with plants purifies water far better than your standard water treatment plant at lower energy costs.

Applications:

1. Channels for excess water should be on level sets, spreading the water out (avoiding choke points) not down hill.

2.  In cities, it is a grave error to mix greywater with blackwater. Blackwater should be composted, greywater should be used to irrigate plants. This was established by the late Belgian chemist Joseph Országh in the 1990s.  See http://eautarcie.org/ for extensive videos on  designing such systems.

Examples of bad design in Los Angeles (note that according to https://www.greywatercorps.com/ 19% of the electric power used in Los Angeles is dedicated to pumping water, either from some source or in water treatment facilities).

1. The Los Angeles river used to have a floodplain that soaked up excess water and purified it during heavy rain.  The floodplain was drained, buildings were constructed and concrete was poured onto the river bed to "increase flood capacity".  This is of course very poor water management because both water storage and purification has been removed. Today    there are many projects to rectify this poor design non of which go far    enough in my opinion.

2. Our neighbors up the hill (in Los Angeles) have frequent problems with their sewage line. The pipes are very old and leak. Plant roots grow into the sewage line eventually blocking it so that every 6 months city workers come to cut out the roots growing in the pipes. Of course the plants are using much better water management than the people. They are slowing water flow into the ocean and doing some purification. If greywater was used for irrigation, there would be far less water flowingin the pipes and problems would be substantially reduced.

3. In 2022, new homes are required to send the rain water from the roof through a filter before it enters the storm drain to go out to the sea. It is hard to imagine a more ignorant mandate in an arid region. The mandate should be to store the rain water for use in the house.  

An example of good water management, the water wizard of Oregon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuYGS5pLRZg

I have become a big fan of living green roofs. Sun and precipitation wear down roofing material. In addition to protecting roofing material, putting soil for plants on roofs offers water storage and purification. Green roofs insulate from the heat and from the cold if the exterior temperature is below freezing. Living green roofs increase biodiversity by providing space for drought resistant plants and other creatures to thrive.  A few centimeters of soil on the roof should reduce the risk of the house burning as well.
 
Here is a link to Alan Savory's Ted Talk on holistic management of livestock preventing the need for fires in savannas in Africa:
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=fr#t-769899,

Best,

Ian --

 

Holobionts are the building blocks of life!

Rain is Life, and Holobionts Create it

 

Buying vegetables at a stall in Florence on a rainy day. My wife, Grazia, is the one with the pink umbrella. 

By Ugo Bardi

After three months of drought during the summer, Florence is now drenched in rain. It has been raining for two months and people are complaining that it is too much! But it is how things have to be: I recently discovered that rain is an "autocatalytic" phenomenon. A more humid atmosphere creates more rain, and rain creates a more humid atmosphere. And that creates long periods of static weather -- too little rain and then too much. 

I learned that from the work of Anastassia Makarieva, Mara Baudena, and several others who have studied the relationship between atmospheric humidity and rain. Look at this figure, from a paper by Makarieva et al., to be published.

The y-axis is the amount of rain, in mm/hour. The x-axis is the amount of water vapor in the "air column." Note the strongly non-linear relationship. It is a typical power law: a small increase in atmospheric humidity causes a large change in rainfall. The three red points indicate the boundary of the "abiotic regime" (no rain) and the power law region.  

As I said, it is an autocatalytic phenomenon, Rain tends to generate more rain, at least as long as it wets the land and it generates moisture transpiration, which increases the water vapor content in the atmosphere. This has very practical consequences in many senses. One is the role of forests in weather and climate. Forests generate strong evapotranspiration, that is they pump water from the soil to the atmosphere. And, also, forests tend to keep water in the soil, slowing down the runoff.

So, not only do forests generate rain, but they also tend to maintain the rain pattern. Without forests, and with the land covered with buildings, you have the typical desert climate: dry most of the time, then with short periods of heavy rain. Disasters ensue, now a common pattern in areas such as California or Italy, where deforestation has taken place. 

So, we need our fellow holobionts, the trees. Onward, fellow holobionts!

(below, some rain-loving holobionts pictured together)

Chip 'n Dale: Holobionts

 

Do you remember Chip 'n Dale? They were created by Walt Disney in 1943. It seemed wholly natural to viewers that they had a nice home inside the trunk of hollow trees. The idea that they were looking for natural cavities appeared from their very first story, which had to do with their attempt to settle inside the barrel of a cannon. 

Cannons are still abundant in the world, but hollow trees don't seem to be so common anymore. Think about that: have you ever seen a hollow tree outside horror fiction or cartoons? I never saw a hollow tree comparable to the fictional ones. It is only in parks that keep old trees that, occasionally, you can still see hollow trees, but rarely with those huge hollows where Chip and Dale could make their home. 

Yet, hollow trees have a special fascination and are part of forest lore everywhere in the world. They are not just fascinating for human beings, they are also home to all sorts of animal species. Birds, typically, but also larger ones, such as raccoons and even bears. In this sense, hollow trees are a feature of the forest holobiont, just one of the many multispecies holobionts that keep the ecosystem alive and adaptable. 

The formation of a hole on a tree stem is a wholly natural process that's generated, normally, by the action of specialized saprophyte fungi -- although woodpeckers can initiate the process and, sometimes, dig quite substantial holes. The plant is not normally harmed by one or a few hollows. Old trees tend to accumulate hollows, and when they die they become "snags," not anymore live trees, but still part of the forest ecosystem, homes to a variety of animal species.  

So, why so few hollow trees around? Have they become an abomination? Apparently, yes, I have a fig tree in my garden with a few hollows in the stem, and everyone who sees it asks when we are going to cut it. And that's the destiny of hollow trees everywhere. If you look at the term on the Web, you'll find plenty of pages describing "hollow tree removal services." It seems that hollow trees are indeed seen as a monstrosity, slated to be eliminated as soon as possible. And whenever a tree develops a hollow, it is plugged with cement or silicon, or whatever. 

More in general, hollow trees are a victim of the "optimization" trend in forest management. It doesn't matter whether it is a plantation or a park, if the idea is to make trees grow as fast as possible, then hollow ones have to be removed. It is typical of human management: it is aimed at maximizing just one of the parameters of the system. Instead, holobionts aim at optimizing all the parameters together. Humans aim at yield, holobionts aim at stability. Maybe, one day, humans will learn, and maybe they are already starting to learn. In the book "Chanterelle Dreams" by Greg Marley, you can find an entire chapter dedicate to how to restore tree hollows for cavity nesters. Some creative methods can be used, such as using shotguns to shoot slugs packed with fungal spawn into the bulk of a tree stem. It seems to be working -- so, not everyone marching into a forest with a shotgun in hand is there to do damage!

Up to not long ago, I was convinced that, apart from my fig tree, hollow trees had been scientifically exterminated in all the areas close to where I live. Instead, I discovered that the avenue just near my home is lined by wonderful honeyberry trees ("bagolari" in Italian), most of which have numerous, well-visible hollows. Some are clearly the result of branches having been cut off, others may have developed by themselves. I won't tell you where exactly this place is, least someone decides to cut these trees for being "dangerous" or to plug the hollows with cement. As far as I can say, these cavities are not inhabited by birds or other animals, probably because they line a trafficked road. But it is nice to know that there are places where owls, squirrels, and maybe Chip and Dale could take refuge if they decided to live in this area. Here are a few pictures. 

Learning from plants: how to become a forest

 

The Boboli Garden in Florence, which Andrea Battiata cites as an example of harmony and connectedness. Battiata is an agronomist living in Florence who set up a vegetable garden called "ortobioattivo" where he cultivates vegetables using only natural methods. Here, he does not directly mention holobionts but makes a fundamental point on how the network of a forest is organized as a holobiont, and how we, humans, could learn a lot from forests. Even to the point of "becoming" a forest. It is a deep, deep point. You can compare Battiata's considerations with those of Blair Fix, a Canadian physicist. We have a big problem with an entity we created, perhaps unwillingly, the human social hierarchy, which may be the ultimate origin of the economic inequality in the world. The ways of holobionts are many, but all are worth following.  

by Andrea Battiata 

Over the past decade, in which I have begun to produce food that is good for people and at the same time does not deplete the fertility of the earth, I have felt fortunate to have co-created meaningful relationships that are deeply connected.  I realize now that the intense training to become a co-evolutionary agronomist was, more than anything else, a prelude to receiving lessons from plants and from how plants are virtuous.

Beautiful are the gatherings at my garden, "Ortobioattivo" where people get together with others who understand their concern for the future and share the enormous range of emotional intensity surrounding their lifestyle. These things matter, because loneliness is a disease in and of itself. There is much research to support this: one scientific study showed that people who had weaker social ties were 50 percent more likely to die early than those with stronger ties. Being disconnected, in fact, poses a danger comparable to smoking fifteen cigarettes a day and was more predictive of early death than the effects of air pollution or physical inactivity.

It is the sense of belonging to something greater than one's existential loneliness and the tangible support derived from this sense that makes us feel vital; connection is so important to us, humans, that without it we wither and may even die. In our first months of life, we are cradled, kissed, and hugged, and, along with eye contact, we receive loving touch and hear our names spoken to us.

We are programmed for this. We are evolving to relate to each other. The search for models and ideas for building communities that relate to and improve their existence with food has become a way of life for me. 

I think that if we can create places and spaces that give what we are looking for such as connection with nature, interaction or physical proximity to each other, a structure that provides opportunities for community building, services, and learning appropriate lifestyles to make us feel good by feeding well, we can be a "forest", helping each other just like plants that stay together and help each other.

The nature of plants shows us the way how communities grow and thrive despite, overcoming the challenges of finding space, light, and fertile soil. 

Nature does this. Every day, from an evolutionary perspective. 

I think we can do it too.

Plant communities are constantly adapting to their environments: growing deep tap roots when water is scarce, flowering at night to prevent dehydration and growing bright and colorful flowers to attract pollinators. Together they create ingenious ways to survive and thrive even in harsh deserts and tropical forests. Humans, too, can find a connection with the Earth. We long for membership in a community and constantly work to adapt to the negative factors of isolation and separation that we face and often create. As scientific research and experience show, as our social ties weaken and our sense of belonging diminishes, we lose one of the great possibilities for resilience to the negative factors of daily life.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed to us, through the difficulties of our continued isolation and estrangement, that we are a species with a deep need for connection. Exactly like the mycelium of fungi that communicates in an uinderground network, good human community functions as a huge underground support system, allowing us to live well above ground in our individual bodies. We are attached to the Earth, physically and metaphorically. Looking to Nature for healthy living patterns makes sense, and it is there that wisdom can be found in times of trouble.

Many of the most successful health models are literally outside our windows and based in communities. Here in Florence, in early fall, I look out the window at the Boboli Gardens, a large city park in the center of the city. The trees are in various states of change; many are already bare and some are clinging to a few multicolored leaves. They are alive, but the pulse of energy is not visible as they head into winter. Trees, of course, do not die in winter but become dormant. It is a semi-hibernation that cause everything inside the tree to slow down: metabolism, energy consumption, growth. Since they do not produce photosynthesis and thus energy in winter, they release their leaves, which require a great deal of energy to maintain. In these autumn days, trees transfer water into their cells and, when the temperature drops, move that water from inside the cell to the tiny spaces outside, between the cells. This prevents tree cells from freezing.

Even in this dormant state, trees communicate through their root structure, sending nourishment to smaller trees around them that need it, and protecting each other by sending chemical communication messages. They work in a community. Nature is literally showing us the way to health. Communicate and be close to those you care about. Some of the answers are right there, outside the window, in our parks rich of hedges and trees, everywhere in Florence. All we have to do is look away from our computers, television screens, and cell phones to stop, listen and absorb it all.

Without dormancy, energy conservation, leaf fall, rest, restoration, a different appearance throughout the seasons, and the added benefit of a community of trees nearby, a tree may not survive for long and will not have the much-needed energy to thrive and gather sun from the sky and nutrients from the earth. With these adaptations, a tree can survive several challenging seasons.

The simplicity of this lesson is lost in the complexity of human life. There are people who are burning their energy on all fronts: work, family, conflict, poverty, violence, wars, and stress from multiple sources.

And while the narrative may be different for each person, the message of becoming like a tree may be the same. This unhealthy living condition is creating a winter, and inner health and strength must be preserved by limiting emotional expenditure in every way possible. Having a community to lean on when winter is upon us can make a significant difference in healing, mental health and spiritual stability. In the end, like trees and mushrooms.

Ultimately, the way of being in connection with other people and being of use, or at least listening and empathizing, is life-giving and makes us feel that we are in connection with Nature. We don't have to do anything so naturally different or unique or special to create communities to which we can all belong. Exactly like plants!

The Role of the Forest Holobiont in Earth's Climate: More Important than it was Believed so far

Above, the talk by Anastassia Makarieva at the International Conference on Basic Science for Sustainability in Belgrade, on Sep 22, 2022

It is about an innovative and important interpretation of the current climate situation. Anastassia is proposing that the warming of the atmosphere may be caused not just by the accumulated CO2, but by a radiative forcing of the same order of magnitude generated by deforestation. Earth's forests are giant holobionts coupled and embedded in the even larger holobiont that's the whole ecosystem. It is not surprising that they strongly affect climate, and not just by the conventional factors, albedo and carbon sequestration. There is much more than that, as you can learn by watching the clip, above.  

I don't have to tell you the consequences of this concept. If it turns out to be true (and I think it might well be), it means that we have done a lot of wrong things in trying to mitigate global warming, for instance proposing "biofuels" obtained from wood. But there is much more: it is a complete revolution in the way we see Earth's climate system. Forests not only cool the atmosphere, but also stabilize the climate. This means not only that we need more forests, but that some ideas such as carbon sequestration and geoengineering could do a lot of damage if not coupled with reforestation.

On the other hand, Anastassia's ideas could also be misunderstood as meaning that Climate Science, as it has been proposed so far, is all wrong. And that's sure to happen if her ideas come into the hands of politically minded people who would use that to propose that there is no such thing as global warming, climate emergency, etcetera.  But if we believe in Science (true science, not TV science) we must not be afraid of the truth.

Onward, fellow holobionts!

The "Prescribed Burning" of Forests. Is it a Good Idea?

Fires have accompanied forests from the beginning of their existence, hundreds of millions of years ago. We are not completely sure of the role that fires play in the ecosystem, but it is not necessarily always bad. The resulting formation of "pyrolytic carbon" (PyC) removes carbon from the ecosystem and has a cooling effect on climate. 

In recent times, the concept of "prescribed burning" or "controlled burning" became fashionable. The idea is that a small fire now may prevent a larger fire later, especially since it removes the debris on the forest floor. But the question is hugely complex and, as always, the discussion becomes political and unhinged from the reality of facts and models. So, are prescribed burnings a good idea, or just an attempt of politicians to show that they are "doing something" on the problem of forest fires

Overall, the opinion of the experts who intervened on this subject in the "Proud Holobionts" forum is that prescribed fires are a bad idea. Nevertheless, the debate is ongoing. If you allow me a personal opinion, I tend to think that the validity of prescribed burning depends on where it is practiced. In forests, it may be awfully bad. In savannas and grasslands, it may be a good idea, at least in some circumstances. It may be that humans have been forced to take control of fires in grasslands and savannas after they exterminated the megafauna that thrived there. The megafauna had a beneficial effect on grass and helped maintain the fertility of the soil, whereas it probably did only damage to forests. But, once the large animals were eliminated, humans had to take upon themselves the same tasks. This is one more fascinating facet of the way Earth's ecosystem works. In any case, eventually, humans and forests must learn to live with each other as good holobionts are known to do.  

Here, I reproduce first a message that was posted on the "Proud Holobionts" discussion forum by Natalia Novoselova, coordinator of the “Stop the Harmful Forms of PrescribedBurnings!” It is an ISEU (International Socio-Ecological Union) public campaign. Afterward, I am passing to you another posting to the holobiont forum by Helga Vierich, an anthropologist, who argues that the ancient practices of burning as implemented by the native people of the Kalahari and the Sahel are good for the local environment. These two viewpoints are not necessarily in contrast with each other. They just examine the problem in different environments and conditions (UB).

Should you be interested in joining the "Proud Holobionts" discussion group, write me at prudentlobster(twinklything)gmail.com

On prescribed Burnings

By Natalia Novoselova (ISEU) "Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burnings"

(slightly readapted from a post to "The Proud Holobionts" discussion group)

It is a false statement that, since the native ancient people of North America (Indians) had implemented the practice of burning, the same burning practice must be used in our time. The correct understanding is that, no, it's not. The prescribed burning industry uses the idea of the “wise experience of burning” of the native folks to promote the practice of burning. Criticism of this opinion is considered in Part III of the campaign against prescribed burnings. The following text is a summary of the one presented there. 

The paradigm of prescribed burning is based on a dangerous belief about the necessity to continue the tactics of burning the natural territories of ancient native people. Many apologists of prescribed burning believe, that in current times people should continue the burning tactics of ancient native peoples (American Indians, Australian, and African Aborigines) who, for thousands of years burned natural territories for hunting and agriculture. The confidence that the ancient burnings were great wisdom that brought benefits to nature is one of the cornerstones of a philosophical system of prescribed burning paradigms in North America and Australia. Also, it is one of the principal arguments used in the propaganda of prescribed burning practices around the world. These arguments are often found in the press, scientific papers, websites, and social network groups devoted to prescribed burnings and wildfire fighting (see the references at this link).

However, the authors of the texts about the wisdom of the ancient traditions of burning and the need for their continuation in our days, do not explain the reasons for these beliefs. They do not explain why they think that the burning of ancient people did not harm wild nature, and why they think that modern people need to continue this practice. They do not try to analyze the ancient burning and comprehensively assess their impact on wild nature. The ancient practices of burning are called “wisdom and benefit for nature”, only because the ancient native peoples implemented them for a very long time, several thousands of years. Thus, these beliefs have the character of propaganda, the only purpose of which is to justify the modern methods and scale of the prescribed burning industry and convince society to burn more and more.

The book “Fire in Nature” authored by Ed Komarek (American enthusiast and propagandist of prescribed burning practice, founder of several Facebook groups dedicated to prescribed burning propaganda in the world) is a clear example of the exaltation of the ancient Native American burning practice, and justification of the mass prescribed burnings implemented in the USA by this ancient experience. Even in terms of the science that accompanies the modern practice of prescribed burning, Ed Komarek describes his proposal as a transfer of the experience of the ancients to modern realities. The same author fiercely criticizes the academic opposition to prescribed burning (that is, those scientists who reject the usefulness of prescribed burning practice) without giving rational arguments for his criticism. Actually, it is known that the impact of ancient people was a real catastrophe for the biological diversity and natural ecosystems of the planet on all continents and on most of the islands where people settled.

According to archaeological data (Harari, "A brief history of humankind" 2011), since the separation of modern humans (Homo sapiens) from other hominins, about 70-100 thousand years ago – humankind has become the most destructive species for ecosystems on the planet. As soon as people arrive at a new continent or an island – the result is the quick (in terms of hundreds or thousands of years) loss of about 60-90% of the species diversity of large animals (mammals, reptiles, and birds). Ancient people were the direct or indirect cause of the death of hundreds of species of insects and mollusks. Most of the megafauna of mammal and bird species disappeared on all continents and islands because of ancient humans which spread there. In particular, it is known that the human colonization of Australia (45 thousand years ago) and both Americas (16 thousand years ago) caused there an environmental catastrophe, the disappearance of the majority of large animal species, and significant changes in natural ecosystems. For example, the fossils of plants confirm that 45 thousand years ago eucalyptus trees grew in a small area in Australia. But after the arrival of Homo sapiens on this continent, the eucalyptus trees suddenly spread everywhere, displacing all other trees and bushes. This change in the vegetation composition affected significantly the animals of Australia. Many species of animals of all sizes could disappear in Australia because of changes in their habitat, caused by ancient people. Similar processes can be supposed on all continents and islands inhabited by people. The main instruments of this influence of ancient people on natural ecosystems and biodiversity were the burning of forests and hunting, and later – the cutting of trees. Some huge deserts of the planet may have been, in part, the result of such activities of ancient people (the Saharan desert, the deserts of central Australia, and others).

It can be concluded that the ancient human practices of burning on all continents and islands were catastrophically destructive to natural ecosystems and the biological diversity of the planet. Ancient people caused the extinction of a huge number of animal species of all sizes and almost all the megafauna of the planet. In our time, there are no rational reasons to continue the destructive practices of ancient people – the burning of natural lands and hunting. Therefore, the confidence that, currently, people should continue the burning tradition of ancient people - is another false postulate or misconception at the base of the prescribed burning paradigm, which contradicts common sense and worldwide objectives of nature conservation.

It is important to say that ancient people burned natural areas for survival; it was their way of life and the method of food production. In early times, the burning of wild forests was implemented for hunting purposes. Later, the burns were conducted for primitive slash-and-burn agriculture. These actions caused catastrophic destruction in the nature of all territories, where people lived. Since burning was necessary for the survival of ancient people, we (modern people) can forgive them for the damage they caused to the natural ecosystems and biodiversity of the planet. But, obviously, it is impossible to idealize these activities and consider them as useful practices that should be continued in our time! But this is exactly what the apologists of prescribed burning do, who have made the ancient practice of burning the cornerstone of their philosophy.

Also, the pyrophytic ecosystems formed as a result of the burning of ancient people (natural territories with a predominance of flora and fauna adapted to frequent fires and a state of constant pyrogenic succession) cannot be considered a benefit. Maybe some of these artificial natural landscapes can be preserved by special measures, but the main territories should be free from the anthropogenic pressure of burning because modern people do not need to burn natural lands for their survival. Modern society is organized according to principles that did not exist in ancient times and modern people do not need to get their food and clothes by hunting and slash-and-burn farming. Therefore, there is no rational reason to continue the destructive practice of burning. On the contrary, now there is an opportunity to finally free wild nature from this long destructive anthropogenic pressure – artificial burning and hunting.

 

Ancient Cultural Burning Methods

Helga Ingeborg Vierich (Anthroecology.com)

(from a post to "The Proud Holobionts" discussion group)

Out-of-control Wildfire is a killer. It may well have been one of the first and most overwhelming challenges faced by our distant ancestors - learning to reduce the scale and scope of such a menace... "taming" fire was more than creating campfires and cooking fires, and using it as a tool. It was figuring out how it interacted with life and developing strategic practices that turned it into a useful tool in making our beloved natural world and fellow creatures safe from the worst risks it posed. You know what else the Bushmen told me? They said that there were only two things that crossed the barrier between the material world where we exist, and the spiritual immaterial unknown realm beyond, where the creator dwells. These two manifestations were FIRE and LOVE... and by carefully deploying both of these humans can learn the truth about themselves - why are we here??.  I have always found this a comforting thought. 

I studied the use of cultural burning, both in the Kalahari and in the Sahel. In both locations, people set small "cool" fires to remove excess dry leafy, and grassy material. This is done to reduce the risk of extreme wildfires, which can apparently get so hot they will kill the organisms under the surface of the soil, including fungal networks and living roots of vegetation.

Humans evolved as a keystone species of ecological engineers, and tend to manage each ecosystem by encouraging greater plant and animal diversity. They do this not just by creating mosaics of secondary growth by periodic burning, but also by replanting many species of plants, including trees and shrubs, that provide them with food. They also recognize important species that fix nitrogen. They are aware that these are critical in keeping soils healthy and restoring soils in areas that are recovering from drought. In the Kalahari, I was told that the giraffe was rarely hunted because it was essential in spreading the seeds of the tall acacia - a nitrogen-fixing species. 

Here are some further references:

New research in Arnhem Land reveals why institutional fire management is inferior to cultural burning

Indigenous knowledge reveals history of fire-prone California forest

Study offers earliest evidence of humans changing ecosystems with fire | YaleNews

'Fire is medicine': the tribes burning California forests to save them | US news | The Guardian

Never has there been a greater need for Aboriginal fire-stick farming - » The Australian Independent Media Network

(1) Controlled Aboriginal Fires: Australia's Experience - YouTube

Reassessment of the use of fire as a management tool in deciduous forests of eastern North America. - PubMed - NCBI

Indigenous impacts on North American Great Plains fire regimes of the past millennium | PNAS

Fire responses to postglacial climate change and human impact in northern Patagonia (41–43°S) | PNAS

Research suggests First Peoples were firestick farming in North Queensland for up to 140,000 years | Sovereign Union - First Nations Asserting Sovereignty

fire ecology Table of Contents — June 05, 2016, 371 (1696) | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Fire history in a western Fennoscandian boreal forest as influenced by human land use and climate - Rolstad - 2017 - Ecological Monographs - Wiley Online Library

Savannas and Grasslands: Holobionts Adapting to a Changing Earth

 

The Savanna of the Tarangire Park, in Tanzania (image from Wikipedia)

A recent paper by Carla Staver and Carolyne Stromberg on Savannas, recently appeared on "Science" -  It is a fascinating, although brief, review of what we know about savannas and grasslands. The interest in this kind of studies lies, in my opinion, in their "deep time" perspective. We are used to the existence of savannas and grasslands, but we often tend to forget that they are a relatively recent innovation in the biosphere. Staver and Stromberg estimate that they appeared "just" 20 million years ago. To compare, the forest biome is at least 400 million years old.

In evolutionary terms, if something exists, it is because it has a reason to exist. Savannas and Grasslands are mostly a reaction of the ecosystem to the profound changes that occurred during the Cenozoic, the past 66 million years. Earth emerged out of the End-Mesozoic disaster, the one that destroyed the dinosaurs, as a hot and lush planet. But, some 50 million years ago, a phase of cooling started, and it is lasting in our times (except for the recent human perturbation). 

My personal interpretation of this cooling phase is that the outgassing of CO2 from the mantle could not compensate for the carbon sequestration operated by the biosphere and that the cooling is the result of the gradually lower CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. (image from Zhang et al.)

At some moment, plants had to adapt to a CO2 concentration as low as 170 ppm -- never seen before in Earth's history. This adaptation led to the appearance of the "C4" mechanism of photosynthesis that uses less water and less CO2. The result was a major rebalancing of the ecosystem: for some reasons, probably linked to the water pumping mechanism from roots to the leaves, trees are not happy to use the C4 mechanism, preferring instead the older "C3" one. That led to the widespread appearance of savannas and grasslands, better adapted to a CO2-poor climate. 

From then on, two different holobionts have populated Earth: Forests and grasslands. The main difference is that a Forest has a closed canopy, whereas a savanna has an open one. The effects on the water cycle management are profound: the forest can trigger the biotic pump mechanism to carry water vapor from the oceans, while the savanna, probably, cannot. Both biomes are adapted to the conditions that they themselves create: forests thrive in humid environments and they tend to create it using the biotic pump. The savannas prefer a dry environment: they create it to keep forests away. Savannas also tend to thrive in the presence of mega-herbivores, which instead may be a cause of damage to forests. We may see this situation as a tug of war between the two biomes, although it is also true that the ecosystem knows no "war," only adaptation. Those holobionts that adapt best, survive. It may be possible that grass and trees are two sides of a single, large holobiont that includes savannas, grasslands, and forests. The concept of holobiont is fractal. 

And now? The savanna monkeys (aka "humans") have changed everything. They have methodically razed the forests but, at the same time, they recently engaged in a major re-forestation effort. They have destroyed forests by fires but have also done incredible efforts to suppress forest fires. They have also damaged grassy ecosystems turning them into pastures and removing the large herbivores, but they are also trying to preserve the remaining herbivores. In short, they can't decide what they want to do! The only sure thing is that they have been raising the CO2 atmospheric concentration by burning fossil carbon, gradually returning it to the levels of the early and mid-Cenozoic. That favors trees against grasses. Indeed, we are seeing a remarkable defined reforestation trend all over the Earth. 

So far, we cannot say how this heavy intervention of the savanna monkeys will affect the ecosystem in the long term. The pumping up of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere may be a short-lived pulse, or it may affect the planet for millions of years. Whatever the case, Gaia has been around for a few billion years, and she surely knows what to do. She can deal with these monkeys as they deserve. 

h/t Mara Baudena. To know more of the evolution of forests and savannas, see this post on "The Proud Holobionts" If you cannot access the paper by Staver and Stromberg, ask me for a copy at ugo.bardi(thingamajig)unifi.it

   

Forests: Holobionts that Dominate the Land's Ecosystem

 

The beech ("Fagus") forest of Abbadia San Salvatore, in Tuscany, Italy. A living holobiont in all its splendor. (photo by the author).

Not many people, today, have a chance to see a fully grown, mature forest. Of course, trees are common even in cities, and there are many places where trees grow together in sufficient numbers that they can be termed "woods." But mature forests have become rare in our urbanized environment. 

One such mature forest survives on the slopes of the Amiata mountain (Monte Amiata), an ancient volcano located about at the center of Tuscany, Italy. Not really a "pristine" forest, but managed by humans with a sufficiently light hand so that it can grow according to its tendency of forming a "monodominant" forest. It is composed nearly completely of a single species of trees: the Fagus sylvatica the European beech. In the photo, below, you can see the east side of the Amiata mountain seen from the valley. 

Our remote ancestors were, most likely, savanna creatures: they weren't used to forests. We may only imagine the awe they felt when they migrated north, from their original African home, to walk in the great forests of Eurasia, by then emerging out of the last ice age. It is a sensation that we can still feel, today. Not many of us are acquainted with the subtleties of a forest ecosystem, but we can recognize that we are looking at something gigantic: an enormous creature that dominates the land. 

A forest is much more than just trees -- it is the true embodiment of the concept of "holobiont." (at least in the version called "extended holobiont" by Castell et al.).  It is an assembly of different creatures that live in symbiosis with each other. The beauty of the concept is that the creatures that form a holobiont are not altruistic. Individual trees don't care about the forest -- they probably don't even know that such a thing as a "forest" exists. They all act for their own survival. But the result is the optimal functioning of the whole system: a forest is a holobiont is a forest.

It has been only in recent times that we have been able to understand part of the intricate network of relations that create the forest holobiont. You may have heard of the "mycorrhiza," the association between tree roots and fungi -- a concept known since the 19th century. It is a typical symbiotic relationship: the plant provides food (carbohydrates) to the fungus, while the fungus provides minerals for the plant. The intricate network of tree roots and fungi has been termed the "Wood Wide Web" since it connects all trees together, exchanging sugars, nitrogen, minerals, and -- probably -- information. 

But trees also get together above ground to support each other. A monodominant forest, such as the beeches of Monte Amiata forms a relatively uniform canopy that provides several advantages. It shades the ground, maintaining it humid, and avoiding the growth of competing species. The trees also shield each other from the gusts of wind that may topple an isolated plant. 

The canopy is the interface between the ground and the atmosphere. Trees evaporate enormous amounts of water in a process called "evapotranspiration." Trees do not do that to favor other trees -- it is their way to exploit the sun's heat to pull water and nutrients all the way from the roots to the leaves of the crown. Evaporated water is a byproduct of the process and, yet, it is fundamental for the survival of the forest. 

It is a complex story that sees water being transferred from the ground to the atmosphere, where it may condense around the particles of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), also emitted by the trees. The result is the formation of low-height clouds that further shield the ground from solar heat and that will eventually give back the water in the form of rain. 

But it is not just a vertical movement: the condensation of water droplets above the canopy of a forest creates a depression that generates wind. This wind may transport inland humid masses of atmosphere from the oceans, where the water had evaporated. It is the mechanism of the "biotic pump" that guarantees abundant rain whenever forests exist. Cut the forest, and you lose the rain. It is not enough to plant trees to have the rain back. You have to wait for the forest to mature and form a full canopy to trigger the biotic pump. 

So, we have all the reasons to be awed at the sight of a fully grown forest. And we have all the reasons to keep it the way it is. The whole planetary ecosystem depends on healthy forests, and we have only recently learned how important forests are. Yet, we keep cutting and burning them. Is it too late to remedy the damage done? Maybe not, but we'll have to see. 

To learn more

Holobionts: https://theproudholobionts.blogspot.com/2022/08/holobionts-new-paradigm-to-understand.html

About the biotic pump: https://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump.php

About the role of forests on climate: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24551-5, see also https://theproudholobionts.blogspot.com/2022/08/forests-do-they-cool-earth-or-do-they.html

For a more detailed discussion of forests as holobionts: https://theproudholobionts.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-greatest-holobiont-on-earth-old.html

Below: one of the beeches of the Monte Amiata, shown with Ugo Bardi's wife Grazia, and his Grand-Daughter, Aurora

Do we focus too much on CO2 alone? An appeal for the conservation of natural ecosystems

 

Image from the University of Toronto. 

Have we exaggerated with the idea that CO2 -- carbon dioxide -- is the arch villain of the story? Aren't we overemphasizing solutions that imply CO2 removal? How about geoengineering, sometimes touted as "the" solution that will allow us to keep going on burning fossil fuels? 

There is no doubt that the emissions of carbon dioxide are returning the ecosystem to a condition that was never seen before at least one million years ago. There is no doubt that CO2 is warming the planet and that none of our Sapiens ancestors ever breathed in an atmosphere that contains a concentration of CO2 of 420 parts per million -- as we are doing. 

But by focussing so much on CO2 alone is easy to forget what humans have been doing to the ecosystems that keep the biosphere alive (and with it, humankind). The ecosystem is a giant holobiont that strives for stability: a fundamental element to stabilize Earth's climate. It is a dangerous illusion to think that we, humans, can replace the work of Gaia with our fancy carbon capture machinery, or whatever other tricks we may concoct. 

Here is a reminder by a group of people from Eastern Europe who managed to maintain a certain degree of mental sanity. They remind us of the damage we are doing. Will anyone listen to them? (UB)

Appeal to the international community, governments, scientific, public organizations and business

https://www.es-partnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Appeal_Protect-Ecosystems.pdf

RECOGNIZE THE VALUE AND ROLE OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE!

Terrestrial and marine natural ecosystems are the basis for preservation of biological life on Earth. They have existed almost unchanged for millions of years and all this time have supported climate stability, biochemical flows, global water circulation and many other processes, irreplaceable and essential for preservation of life on our planet. Undisturbed natural ecosystems maintain the Earth's temperature, suitable for human life.

The laws of nature are the basis of life on Earth, and all the laws of human society that regulate economic, political, social and cultural relations are secondary to them and must take into account the biosphere’s operating principles and man’s place in it.

However, over the past decades, human activities aimed at meeting the needs for food, energy and 
water have caused unprecedented changes in ecosystems, including land degradation and deforestation. These changes have helped improve the lives of billions of people, but at the same time, they have destroyed nature's ability to regulate the environment and maintain the climate.

According to current estimates, more than 75% of natural ecosystems are subject to degradation and loss of their functions, which undermines all efforts to preserve the climate and threatens the achievement of SDGs, including hunger, disease and poverty eradication. 

Humanity is standing on the edge of a precipice. Over-threshold disturbance of ecosystems leads to
irreversible loss of the gene pool, up to complete disappearance of ecosystems. In the face of growing efforts and understanding of the threat of climate change, it is now necessary to recognize and support the unique role of natural ecosystems in preserving the climate and a vital environment. International climate policy adjustments and fundamental changes in national development strategies are required.

We call to wake up and recognize the fundamental and irreplaceable value of natural ecosystems and for strong and urgent action, including:

1.  To recognize the goal of preserving natural ecosystems as humanity’s highest priority and stop their further destruction through adopting a global moratorium on any further development of territories still untouched by human activities, with international support mechanisms, including funding.
2.  Promotion of large-scale natural reforestation is an urgent task. Climate-regulating functions of forests, associated with the ability to retain soil moisture and maintain continental water transfer, are their main value, which are orders of magnitude higher than the cost of wood. Undisturbed forests should be completely removed from economic activity by law and allocated to a separate category with the maximum degree of protection. 
3. At all levels, from international to regional, national and local, it is necessary to review ongoing development strategies and take urgent measures to protect natural ecosystems and wildlife. It is necessary to adjust all sectoral policies, including agricultural practices, in order not only to meet the demand for food, but also to minimize the burden on natural ecosystems
4. A transition from conventional sectoral management to basin and ecosystem management is required, including raising the status of nature conservation goals. Water resources management should ensure that natural ecosystems are guaranteed priority in water supply that is necessary for their conservation, as well as protection and restoration of aquatic and other ecosystems - from mountains and glaciers to deltas and reservoirs.
5. Measures aimed at preserving natural ecosystems also require a review of existing incentives and tools and creation of new ones, so that ecosystem services are no longer perceived as free and unlimited, and their management takes into account the interests and roles of the populations and local communities which directly depend on them and are their custodians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Socio-Ecological Union, Eco-Forum (of 54 public organizations) of Kazakhstan, 
Association (non-governmental organizations) «For Sustainable Human Development of Armenia»,
Eco-Forum (independent non-governmental organizations) of Uzbekistan, as well as professional and non-governmental organizations of Armenia, Moldova, Russia, USA and others

The Great Cycle of Earth's Forests

 

 Forests appeared on Earth some 400 million years ago, and they have been thriving over that long period. But, during the past 150 million years, they started to show signs of distress, reacting to the decline in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and to the competition with grasslands. As Earth changes, will forests be able to cope and survive? It is an extremely slow trend, but we cannot rule out that forests will conclude their cycle and disappear in a geologically short time. This text is an attempt to reconstruct the story of forests and to imagine what their future could be in deep time. (image courtesy of Chuck Pezeshky) 

A forest is a magnificent, structured, and functional entity where the individual elements -- trees -- work together to ensure the survival of the ensemble. Each tree pumps water and nutrients all the way to the crown by the mechanism called evapotranspiration. The condensation of the evaporated water triggers the phenomenon called the "biotic pump" that benefits all the trees by pumping water from the sea. Each tree pumps down the carbohydrates it manufactures using photosynthesis to its mycorrhizal space, the underground system of roots and fungi that extracts mineral nutrients for the tree. The whole "rhizosphere" -- the root space -- forms a giant brain-like network that connects the trees to each other, sometimes termed "the Wood Wide Web." It is an optimized environment where almost everything is recycled. We can see it as similar to the concept of "just in time manufacturing" in the human economy. 

Forests are wonderful biological machines, but they are also easily destroyed by fires and attacks by parasites. And forests have a competitor: grass, a plant that tends to replace them whenever it has a chance to. Areas called savannas are mainly grass, although they host some trees. But they don't have a closed canopy, they don't evapotranspirate so much as forests, and they tend to exist in much drier climate conditions. Forests and grasslands are engaged in a struggle that may have started about 150 million years ago when grass appeared for the first time. During the past few million years, grasses seem to have gained an edge in the competition, in large part exploiting their higher efficiency in photosynthesis (the "C4" pathway) in a system where plants are starved for CO2.

Another competitor of forests is a primate that left its ancestral forest home just a couple of million years ago to become a savanna dweller -- we may call it the "savanna monkey," although it is also known as "Homo," or "Homo sapiens." These monkeys are clever creatures that seem to be engaged mainly in razing forests to the ground. Yet, in the long run, they may be doing forests a favor by returning the atmospheric CO2 concentration to values more congenial to the old "C3" photosynthetic mechanism still used by trees. 

Seen along the eons, we have an extremely complex and fascinating story. If forests have dominated Earth's landscape for hundreds of millions of years, one day they may disappear as Gaia gets old. In this post, I am describing this story from a "systemic" viewpoint -- that is, emphasizing the interactions of the elements of the system in a long-term view (it is called also "deep time"). The post is written in a light mood, as I hope to be able to convey the fascination of the story also to people who are not scientists. I tried to do my best to interpret the current knowledge, I apologize in advance for the unavoidable omissions and mistakes in such a complex matter, and I hope you'll enjoy this post. 

The Origin of Forests: 400 million years ago

Life on Earth may be almost 4 billion years old but, since we are multicellular animals, we pay special attention to multicellular life. So, we tend to focus on the Cambrian period (542-488 million years ago), when multicellular creatures became common. But that spectacular explosion of life was all about marine animals. Plants started colonizing the land only during the period that followed the Cambrian, the Ordovician, (485 - 443 million years ago). 

To be sure, the Ordovician flora on land was far from impressive. As far as we know, it was formed only by moss (perhaps lichens, too, but it is not certain). Mosses are humble plants: they are not vascularized, they don't grow tall, and they surely can't compare with trees. Nevertheless, mosses could change the planetary albedo and perhaps contribute to the fertilization of the marine biota -- something that may be related to the spectacular ice ages of the Ordovician. It is a characteristic of the Earth system that the temperature of the atmosphere is related to the abundance of life. More life draws down atmospheric CO2, and that cools the planet. The Ordovician saw one of these periodic episodes of cooling with the start of the colonization of the land. (image from Wikipedia)

There followed another long period called the "Silurian" (444 – 419 My ago) when plants kept evolving but still remained of the size of small shrubs at most. Then, during the Devonian (419 -359 million years ago) we have evidence of the existence of wood. And not only that, the fossil record shows the kind of channels called "Xylem" that connect the roots to the leaves in a tree. These plants were already tall and had a crown, a trunk, and roots. By the following geological period, the Carboniferous (359 - 299 My ago), forests seem to have been widespread.  

A major feature of these ancient trees was the development of an association with fungi. Their roots formed what we call a "mycorrhizal" symbiotic system. The fungi receive carbohydrates that the tree manufactures using photosynthesis, while the tree receives from the fungi essential minerals, including nitrogen and phosphorous. We don't know the details of how this symbiotic relationship evolved over hundreds of millions of years but, below, you can see a hypothesis of how it could have happened. (Source) (in the figure, "AM" stands for "arbuscular mycorrhiza" - the oldest form of symbiotic fungi).

Another major evolutionary innovation that may have been already operating in the Paleozoic forests is the "biotic pump." As an effect of the pressure drop created by the condensation of evapotranspirated water, forests can create pump water vapor from the ocean and create the "atmospheric rivers" that bring water inland. That, in turn, creates the land rivers that bring that water back to the sea. As forests create their own climate, they can expand nearly everywhere. The image shows clouds created by condensation over the modern Amazon rainforest (source).  

If we could walk in one of those ancient forests, we would find the place familiar, but also a little dreary. No birds and not even flying insects, they evolved only tens of million years later. No tree-climbing animals: no monkeys, no squirrels, nothing like that. Even in terms of herbivores, we have no evidence of the kind of creatures we are used to, nowadays. Grass didn't exist, so grazers couldn't exist either. Herbivores were browsers surviving on leaves or on decaying plant matter. Lots of greenery but no flowers, they had not evolved yet. You see in the image (source) an impression of what an ancient forest of Cladoxylopsida could have looked like during the Paleozoic era.

The Paleozoic forests already had one of the characteristics of modern forests: fires. There had never been fires on Earth before for at least two good reasons: one was that there was not enough oxygen, and the other was that there was nothing flammable. But now, with the oxygen concentration increasing and plants colonizing the land, fires appeared, lighting up the night. They would remain a characteristic of the land biosphere for hundreds of millions of years.

Image Source. The "fire window" is the region of concentrations in atmospheric oxygen in which fires can occur. Note how during the Paleozoic, the concentration could be considerably larger than it is now. Fireworks aplenty, probably. Note also how there exist traces of fires even before the development of full-fledge trees, in the Devonian. Wood didn't exist at that time, but the concentration of oxygen may have been high enough to set other kinds of dry organic matter on fire. 

Wildfires are a classic case of a self-regulating system. The oxygen stock in the atmosphere is replenished by plant photosynthesis but is removed by burning wood. So, fires tend to reduce the oxygen concentration and that makes fires more difficult. But the story is more complicated than that. Fires also tend to create "recalcitrant" carbon compounds, charcoal for instance, that are not recycled by the biosphere and tend to remain buried for long times -- almost forever. So, over very long periods, fires tend to increase the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere by removing CO2 from it. The conclusion is that fires both decrease and increase the oxygen concentration. How about that for a taste of how complicated the biosphere processes are? 

 The Mesozoic: Forests and Dinosaurs

At the end of the Paleozoic, some 252 million years ago, there came the great destruction. A gigantic volcanic eruption of the kind we call "large igneous province" (sometimes affectionately "LIP") took place in the region we call Siberia today. It was huge beyond imagination: think of an area as large as modern Europe becoming a lake of molten lava. (image source)

It spewed enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases. That warmed the planet, so much that it almost sterilized the biosphere. It was not the first, but it was the largest mass extinction of the Phanerozoic age. Gaia is normally busy keeping Earth's climate stable, but sometimes she seems to be sleeping at the wheel -- or maybe she gets drunk or stoned. The result is one of these disasters.  

Yet, the ecosystem survived the great extinction and rebounded. It was now the turn of the Mesozoic era, with forests re-colonizing the land. Over time, the angiosperms ("flowering plants") become dominant over the earlier conifers. With flowers, forests may have been much noisier than before, with bees and all kinds of insects. Avian dinosaurs also appeared. They seem to have been living mostly on trees, just like modern birds. 

For a long period during the Mesozoic, the landscape must have been mainly forested. No evidence of grass being common, although smaller plants, ferns, for instance, were abundant. Nevertheless, the great evolution machine kept moving. During the Jurassic, a new kind of mycorrhiza system evolved, the "Ectomycorrhizae" which allowed better control of the mineral nutrients in the rhizosphere, avoiding losses when the plants were not active. This mechanism was typical of conifers that could colonize cold regions of the supercontinent of the time, the "Pangea."  

During the Mesozoic, the dinosaurs appeared and diffused all over the planet. You surely noted how the Jurassic dinosaurs were often bipedal (See the illustration showing an early form of Iguanodon). They are also called "ornithopods," it is a body plan that allows herbivorous creatures to browse on leaves on the high branches of trees. A bipedal stance makes the creature able to stand up, balancing on its tail, reaching higher heights. Some dinosaurs chose a different strategy, developing very long necks for the same purpose: the brontosaurus is iconic in this sense even though, traditionally, it was shown half-submerged in swamps (the illustration is from the New York Tribune of 1919). The idea that brontosaurs lived mainly in swamps is not so bright, if you think about that. Why should a semiaquatic creature need a long neck? Think of a hippo with the neck of a giraffe: it wouldn't work so well. 

A much better representation of long-necked dinosaurs came with the first episode of the "Jurassic Park" (1993) movie series when a gigantic diplodocus eats leaves. At some moment, the beast rises on its hind legs, using the tail as further support. 

If you are a dinosaur lover (and you probably are if you are reading this post) seeing this scene must have been a special moment in your life. And, after having seen it maybe a hundred times, it still moves me. But note how the diplodocus is shown in a grassy environment with sparse trees: a Savanna. That's not realistic because grass didn't exist yet when the creature went extinct at the end of the Jurassic period, about 145 million years ago. 

To see grass and grazers, animals specialized in eating it, we need to wait for the Cretaceous (145-66 million years ago). Evidence that some dinosaurs had started eating grass comes from the poop of long-necked dinosaurs. That's a little strange because, if you are a grazer, the last thing you need is a long neck. But new body plants rapidly evolved. The Ceratopsia were the first true grazers, also called "mega-herbivores". Heavy, four-legged beasts that lived their life keeping their head close to the ground. The Triceratopses gained a space in human fantasy as prototypical dinosaurs, and they are often shown in movies while fighting tyrannosauruses. You see that scene in Walt Disney's movie "Fantasia" (1940). It may have happened for real.

Note the heavy bone shield over the head. With so much weight on board, Trixie couldn't possibly rise on its hind legs to munch on leaves on tree branches. Note also the beak, it looks perfectly adapted for collecting grass. It means that the Cretaceous landscape was probably similar to our world. We don't know if there existed the kind of biome we call today "savanna" -- a mix of grass and trees, but surely the land was shared by forests and grass, each biome with its typical fauna. 

The Great Cooling and the Rise of C4 Grass

At the end of the Cretaceous period, 66 million years ago, a new large igneous province appeared in the Deccan region, in India. It generated another climate disaster with the associated mass extinction. Most dinosaurs were wiped out, except those we call "birds" today. A large meteorite also hit Earth at that time. It caused only minor damage but, millions of years later, it gave human filmmakers a subject to explore in many dramatic movies. 

In time, the Deccan LIP faded away, and the era that followed is called the "Cenozoic." The ecosystem recovered, forests re-colonized the land, and mammals and birds (the only survivors of the Dinosauria clade) fought to occupy the ecological niches left free by their old masters. The early Cenozoic was a warm period of lush forests that offered refuge to a variety of animals: birds made their nests in branches, while squirrels and other small mammals jumped from branch to branch, or lived at the bottom. It is during this period that primates evolved: the huge forests of those times offered refuge for a variety of species that had probably already developed sophisticated social behaviors.  

Grass also survived the end-Cretaceous catastrophe. As a result, some mammals evolved into new "megaherbivores" or "megafauna" that occupied the same ecological niche that the triceratopsides had colonized long before.  Here is a brontotherium, a large herbivorous mammal that lived some 37-35 million years ago, during the late Eocene period (image from BBC).

The megabeasts of the Cenozoic do not have the same fascination of the giant dinosaurs, but this creature has a nice-sounding name, and it looks a little like Shrek, the ogre of Spielberg's movie. Note how the beast is correctly shown walking on a grassy plain. The Eocene is supposed to have been mostly forested, but grass existed, too. The brontotherium was an opportunistic grazer, apparently able to subsist on various kinds of food, not just grass. 

During the warm phase of the Cenozoic, Earth reached a maximum temperature around 55 million years ago, some 8-12 deg C higher than today. The concentration of CO2, too, was large. That is called the "early Eocene climatic optimum". It doesn't mean that this period was better than other periods in terms of climate, but it seems that Earth was mainly covered with lush forests and that the biosphere thrived.  

Then, the atmosphere started cooling. It was a descent that culminated at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, about 34 million years ago, with a new mass extinction. It was a relatively small event in comparison to other, more famous, mass extinctions, but still noticeable enough that the Swiss paleontologist Hans Georg Stehlin gave it the name of the "Grande Coupure" (the big break) in 1910. One of the victims was the Brontotherium -- too bad, it was a nice-looking beast. 

Unlike other cases, the extinction at the Grande Coupure was not correlated to the warming created by a LIP, but to rapid cooling. You see the "step" in temperature decline in the figure. 

Why the big cooling? The answer is not completely known. Surely, cooling was correlated to a decline in the CO2 content in the atmosphere and that, in turn, may have been generated by the collision of the Indian plate with Eurasia. It was a gigantic geological event that generated the Himalayan mountain belt. It exposed huge amounts of fresh rock to the atmosphere, and the result was the removal of CO2 because of silicate erosion and weathering. 

The Himalaya hypothesis is one of those explanations that seem to make a lot of sense, but it has big problems. Another possible explanation is that Earth just outgassed less CO2 than before. The CO2 that plants need for their photosynthesis is generated mainly at the mid-oceanic ridges where the hot mantle (the molten rock layer below Earth's crust) outgasses it, as it has been doing for billions of years. It may well be that the mantle is getting a little colder over the eons, so it outgasses less CO2 than before. It may be true, but it seems to be a weak effect -- not enough to explain the CO2 decline of the Cenozoic.

In my opinion, the most likely hypothesis is that the CO2 concentration declined because of higher biological productivity not just on land, but also in the sea (as seems to be implied in a recent study )

In other words, the early Cenozoic may have been so booming with life of all kinds that it absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than the mantle could replace by outgassing. The result was the cooling phase. The abrupt step at the "Grande Coupure" may be related to the evolution of a specific life form: baleen whales, which changed the equilibria of the whole marine ecosystem, drawing down even more CO2 from the atmosphere.

This interpretation agrees with the fact that ice ages are often observed after LIPs. It may be one of the many cycles of the ecosphere. When a major LIP appears, the rise of CO2 is disastrous at the beginning but, in the long run, it gives the biosphere a chance to rebound and expand in a CO2 rich system.  Then, the rebound generates its own doom: the abundant biological productivity draws down CO2 from the atmosphere, cools the planet, and the system finds itself CO2-starved again. In this interpretation, the Eocene cooling and the Grande Coupure were long-term consequences of the Deccan LIP that had destroyed the dinosaurs, millions of years before. I hasten to note that this is just one of the several possible interpretations but, in my opinion, it makes a lot of sense.    

The Eocene cooling had profound effects on forests. First, the CO2 decline gave an advantage to those plants which utilized a more efficient photosynthesis mechanism called the "C4" pathway. Earlier on, the standard photosynthesis mechanism (called "C3") had evolved in an atmosphere rich in CO2. The C3 mechanism is efficient in processing carbon dioxide, but it is hampered by the opposite process called "photorespiration," which becomes important when the CO2 concentration is low. Using the C4 mechanism, plants can concentrate CO2 in the cells where photosynthesis occurs and avoid the losses by photorespiration. 

C4 plants appeared shortly after the Grande Coupure and diffused mainly in grasses, Trees, instead, didn't adopt the new mechanism. The explanation is subtle: photosynthesis needs water, and the process that goes on in leaves is strongly connected to the evapotranspiration mechanism. The C4 mechanism needs less water than the C3 one, so evapotranspiration is hampered. The result is that C4 trees -- if they exist -- cannot be as tall as the ordinary C3 ones, and so they are not favored by natural selection in forests. In an atmosphere of very low CO2, forests are disadvantaged because of the higher photosynthesis efficiency of grasses. 

During the period that followed the Grande Coupure, temperatures and CO2 concentrations remained stable, but at relatively low levels. The result was that many forests disappeared, replaced by grasslands and savannas. Herbivorous species evolved teeth more specialized for grazing and became "mega-herbivorous" species. The landscape must have become similar to the modern one, with patches of forests alternating with savannas. 

A typical savanna ecosystem: the Tarangire national park in Tanzania. (Image From Wikipedia). Compare with the forest image at the beginning of this post. 

Despite the expansion of savannas, rainforests continued to exist in the tropical regions. Conifer forests kept a foothold in the Northern regions, helped by their Ectomycorrhiza system that avoided the runoff of nutrients in winter. The boreal forest is also called "Taiga." 

Then, a new cooling phase started, apparently a continuation of the previous trend: cooling begets more cooling. It was the beginning of the "Pleistocene," a period of unstable climate with ice ages and interglacials following each other, triggered by small oscillations in solar irradiation caused by the characteristics of Earth's orbit. These oscillations are called "Milankovich Cycles" -- they are not the cause of the ice ages, just triggers. (Image Source).

The oscillations are caused by ice having a built-in albedo feedback so that the more ice expands, the more sunlight is directly reflected into space. That causes the temperature to decline and ice to expand even more. Taken to its extreme consequences, this mechanism may lead to the "Snowball Earth" condition, with ice covering the whole planet's surface. It may have happened for real during the "Cryogenian" period, some 600 million years ago. Fortunately, there were mechanisms able to re-heat Earth and return it to the conditions we consider "normal." 

During the Pleistocene, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere plunged to very low levels, especially during the glacial periods, when it reached levels as low as around 150 parts per million (ppm). Earth may have inched close to a new snowball Earth but, fortunately, that didn't happen. In part, it may be because the sun, today, is about 5% hotter than it was during the Cryogenian. But we will never know how close Gaia got to freeze to death. 

During the Pleistocene, the advancing ice sheets swept away all plants, but even in non-glaciated areas, forests suffered badly.  Tropical rainforests didn't disappear, but they were much reduced in extension. In the North, most of the Eurasian boreal forests were replaced by the "mammoth steppe," a huge area that went from Spain to Kamchatka. where mammoths and other mega-herbivores roamed. 

It is not impossible that an ice age colder than the Pleistocene average could have led to the eventual extinction of the forests, completely replaced by grasses. But that didn't happen, and things were going to change again with the appearance of the Savanna Monkeys -- a completely new species that came to dominate the ecosystem. 

The rise of the Savanna Monkeys

Primates are arboreal creatures that evolved in the warm environment of the Eocene forests. They used tree branches as a refuge, and they could adapt to various kinds of food. Modern primates do not shy from hunting other species, maybe even ancient primates did the same. From the viewpoint of these ancient primates, the shrinking of the area occupied by tropical forests that started with the "Grande Coupure," some 30 million years ago, was a disaster. They were not equipped to live in savannas: they were slow on the ground: an easy lunch for the powerful predators of the time. Primates also never colonized the northern taiga. Most likely, it was not because they couldn't live in cold environments (some modern monkeys can do that), but because they couldn't cross the "mammoth steppe" that separated tropical forests from the Northern forests. If some of them tried, the local carnivores made sure that they didn't succeed. So, "boreal monkeys" do not exist (actually, there is one, shown in the picture, but it is not exactly a monkey!). 

Nevertheless, eventually, monkeys were forced to move into the savanna. During the Pleistocene, about 4 million years ago, the Australopithecines appeared in Africa, (image source). We may call them the first "savanna monkeys." In parallel, perhaps some time later, another kind of savanna monkey, the baboon, also evolved in Africa. In the beginning, australopithecines and baboons were probably practicing similar living techniques, but in time they developed into very different species. The baboons still exist today as a rugged and adaptable species that, however, never developed the special characteristics of australopithecines that turned them into a very different kind of animals. The first creatures that we classify as belonging to the genus Homo, the homo habilis, appeared some 2.8 million years ago. They were also savanna dwellers.

This branch of savanna monkeys won the game of survival by means of a series of evolutionary innovations. They increased their body size for better defense, they developed an erect stance to have a longer field of view, they super-charged their metabolism by getting rid of their body hair and using profuse sweating for cooling, they developed complex languages to create social groups for defense against predators, and they learned how to make stone tools adaptable to different situations. Finally, they developed a tool that no animal on Earth had mastered before: fire. Over a few hundred thousand years, they spread all over the world from their initial base in a small area of Central Africa. The savanna monkeys, now called "Homo sapiens," were a stunning evolutionary success. The consequences on the ecosystem were enormous.

First, the savanna monkeys exterminated most of the megafauna. The only large mammals that survived the onslaught were those living in Africa, where they had the time to adapt to the new predator. For instance, the large ears of the African elephant are a cooling system destined to make elephants able to cope with the incredible stamina of human hunters. But in Eurasia, North America, and Australia, the arrival of the newcomers was so fast and so unexpected that most of the large animals were wiped out. 

By eliminating the megaherbivores, the monkeys had, theoretically, given a hand to the competitors of grass, forests, which now had an easier time encroaching on grassland without seeing their saplings trampled. But the savanna monkeys had also taken the role of megaherbivores. They used fires with great efficiency to clear forests to make space for the game they hunted. In the book "1491" Charles Mann reports (. p 286) how "rather than domesticating animals for meat, Indians retooled ecosystems to encourage elk, deer, and bear. Constant burning of undergrowth increased the number of herbivores, the predators that fed on them, and the people who ate them both"  

Later, as they developed metallurgy, the monkeys were able to cut down entire forests to make space for the cultivation of the grass species that they had domesticated meanwhile: wheat, rice, maize, oath, and many others. 

But the savanna monkeys were not necessarily enemies of the forests. In parallel to agriculture, they also managed entire forests as food sources. The story of the chestnut forests of North America is nearly forgotten today but, about one century ago, the forests of the region were largely formed of chestnut trees planted by Native Americans as a source of food (image source). By the start of the 20th century, the chestnut forest was devastated by the "chestnut blight," a fungal disease that came from China. It is said that some 3-4 billion chestnut trees were destroyed and, now, the chestnut forest doesn't exist anymore. The American chestnut forest is not the only example of a forest managed, or even created, by humans. Even the Amazon rainforest, sometimes considered an example of a "natural" forest, shows evidence of having been managed by the Amazonian Natives in the past as a source of food and other products. 

The action of the savanna monkeys was always massive and, in most cases, it ended in disaster. Even the oceans were not safe from the monkeys: they nearly managed to exterminate the baleen whales, turning large areas of the oceans into deserts. On land, entire forests were razed to the ground. Desertification ensued, brought upon by "megadroughts" when the rain cycle was no more controlled by the forests. Even when the monkeys spared a forest, they often turned it into a monoculture, subjected to be destroyed by pests, as the case of the American chestnuts shows. Yet, in a certain sense, the monkeys were making a favor to forests. Despite the huge losses to saws and hatchets, they never succeeded in completely exterminating a tree species, although some are critically endangered nowadays. 

The most important action of the monkeys was their habit of burning sedimented carbon species that had been removed from the ecosphere long before. The monkeys call these carbon species "fossil fuels" and they have been going on an incredible burning bonanza using the energy stored in this ancient carbon without the need of going through the need of the slow and laborious photosynthesis process. In so doing, they raised the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to levels that had not been seen for tens of millions of years before. That was welcome food for the trees, which are now rebounding from their former distress during the Pleistocene and reconquering the lands they had lost to grass. In the North of Eurasia, the Taiga is expanding and gradually eliminating the old mammoth steppe. Areas that today are deserts are likely to become green. We are already seeing the trend in the Sahara desert. 

What the savanna monkeys could do was probably a surprise for Gaia herself, who must be now scratching her head and wondering what has happened to her beloved Earth. And what's going to happen, now?  

The New Large Igneous Province made by Monkeys

The giant volcanic eruptions called LIPs tend to appear with periodicities of the order of tens or hundreds of million years. But nobody can predict a LIP and, instead, the savanna monkeys engaged in the remarkable feat of creating a LIP-equivalent by burning huge amounts of organic ("fossil") carbon that had sedimented underground over tens or hundreds of millions of years of biological activity. 

It is remarkable how rapid the monkey LIP (MLIP) has been. Geological LIPS typically span millions of years. The MLIP went through its cycle in a few hundreds of years. It will be over when the concentration of fossil carbon stored in the crust will become too low to self-sustain the combustion with atmospheric oxygen. Just like all fires, the great fire of fossil carbon will end when it runs out of fuel, probably in less than a century from now. Even in such a short time, the concentration of CO2 is likely to reach, and perhaps exceed, levels never seen after the Eocene, some 50 million years ago. It is not impossible that it could reach more than 1000 parts per million. 

There is always the possibility that such a high carbon concentration in the atmosphere will push Earth over the edge of stability and kill Gaia by overheating the planet. But that's not a very interesting scenario, so let's examine the possibility that the biosphere will survive the carbon pulse. What's going to happen to the ecosphere?

The Savanna Monkeys are likely to be the first victims of the CO2 pulse that they themselves generated. Without the fossil fuels they had come to rely on, their numbers are going to decline very rapidly. From the incredible number of 8 billion individuals, they are going to return to levels typical of their early savanna ancestors: maybe just a few tens of thousands, quite possibly they'll go extinct. In any case, they will hardly be able to keep their habit of razing down entire forests. Without monkeys engaged in the cutting business and with high concentrations of CO2, forests are advantaged over savannas, and they are likely to recolonize the land, and we are going to see again a lush, forested planet (arboreal monkeys will probably survive and thrive). Nevertheless, savannas will not disappear. They are part of the ecosystem, and new megaherbivores will evolve in a few hundreds of thousands of years. 

Over deep time, the great cycle of warming and cooling may restart after the monkey LIP, just as it does for geological LIPs. In a few million years, Earth may be seeing a new cooling cycle that will lead again to a Pleistocene-like series of ice ages. At that point, new savanna monkeys may evolve. They may restart their habit of exterminating the megafauna, burning forests, and building things in stone. But they won't have the same abundance of fossil fuel that the monkeys called "Homo sapiens" found when they emerged into the savannas. So, their impact on the ecosystem will be smaller, and they won't be able to create a new monkey-LIP. 

And then what? In deep time, the destiny of Earth is determined by the slowly increasing solar irradiation that is going, eventually, to eliminate the oxygen from the atmosphere and sterilize the biosphere, maybe in less than a billion years from now. So, we may be seeing more cycles of warming and cooling before Earth's ecosystem collapses. At that point, there will be no more forests, no more animals, and only single-celled life may persist. It has to be. Gaia, poor lady, is doing what she can to keep the biosphere alive, but she is not all-powerful. And not immortal, either. 

Nevertheless, the future is always full of surprises, and you should never underestimate how clever and resourceful Gaia is. Think of how she reacted to the CO2 starvation of the past few tens of millions of years. She came up with not just one, but two brand-new photosynthesis mechanisms designed to operate at low CO2 concentrations: the C4 mechanism typical of grasses, and another one called crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM). To say nothing about how the fungal-plant symbiosis in the rhizosphere has been evolving with new tricks and new mechanisms. You can't imagine what the old lady may concoct in her garage together with her Elf scientists (those who also work part-time for Santa Claus). 

Now, what if Gaia invents something even more radical in terms of photosynthesis? One possibility would be for trees to adopt the C4 mechanism and create new forests that would be more resilient against low CO2 concentrations. But we may think of even more radical innovations. How about a light fixation pathway that doesn't just work with less CO2, but that doesn't even need CO2? That would be nearly miraculous but, remarkably, that pathway exists. And it has been developed exactly by those savanna monkeys who have been tinkering -- and mainly ruining -- the ecosphere. 

The new photosynthetic pathway doesn't even use carbon molecules but does the trick with solid silicon (the monkeys call it "photovoltaics"). It stores solar energy as excited electrons that can be kept for a long time in the form of reduced metals or other chemical species. The creatures using this mechanism don't need carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, don't need water, they may get along even without oxygen. What the new creatures can do is hard to imagine for us (although we may try). In any case, Gaia is a tough lady, and she may survive much longer than we may imagine, even to a sun hot enough to torch the biosphere to cinders. Forests, too, are Gaia's creatures, and she is benevolent and merciful (not always, though), so she may keep them with her for a long, long time. (and, who knows, she may even spare the Savanna Monkeys from her wrath!). 

We may be savanna monkeys, but we remain awed by the majesty of forests. The image of a fantasy forest from Hayao Miyazaki's movie, "Mononoke no Hime" resonates a lot with us. But can you see the mistake in this image? What makes this forest not a real forest? 

__________________________

Note: You always write what you would like to read, and that's why I wrote this post. But, of course, this is a work in progress. I am tackling a subject so vast that I can't possibly hope to be sufficiently expert in all its facets to avoid errors, omissions, and wrong interpretations. Corrections from readers who are more expert than me are welcome! I would also like to thank Anastassia Makarieva for all she taught me about the biotic pump and about forests in general, and Mihail Voytehov for his comments about the rhizosphere. Of course, all mistakes in this text here are mine, not theirs.