Após muitos anos de segregação, começa-se a vêr agora algumas
mudanças ao nivel da legislação e do cultivo de Canabis em Portugal
Fica a conhecer aqui um pouco da história desta planta no nosso país
Permaculture Design Course
Dont miss our activities
The "general" opinion of Permaculture about "invasive" species and Conciliation Biology
The New Ecology
A provocative exploration of the “new ecology” and why most of what we think we know about alien species is wrong
For a long time, veteran environmental journalist Fred Pearce thought in stark terms about invasive species: they were the evil interlopers spoiling pristine “natural” ecosystems.
Most conservationists and environmentalists share this view. But what if the traditional view of ecology is wrong—what if true environmentalists should be applauding the invaders?
In The New Wild, Pearce goes on a journey across six continents to rediscover what conservation in the twenty-first century should be about. Pearce explores ecosystems from remote Pacific islands to the United Kingdom, from San Francisco Bay to the Great Lakes, as he digs into questionable estimates of the cost of invader species and reveals the outdated intellectual sources of our ideas about the balance of nature. Pearce acknowledges that there are horror stories about alien species disrupting ecosystems, but most of the time, the tens of thousands of introduced species usually swiftly die out or settle down and become model eco-citizens. The case for keeping out alien species, he finds, looks increasingly flawed.
As Pearce argues, mainstream environmentalists are right that we need a rewilding of the earth, but they are wrong if they imagine that we can achieve that by reengineering ecosystems. Humans have changed the planet too much, and nature never goes backward. But a growing group of scientists is taking a fresh look at how species interact in the wild. According to these new ecologists, we should applaud the dynamism of alien species and the novel ecosystems they create.
In an era of climate change and widespread ecological damage, it is absolutely crucial that we find ways to help nature regenerate. Embracing the new ecology, Pearce shows us, is our best chance. To be an environmentalist in the twenty-first century means celebrating nature’s wildness and capacity for change.
In The New Wild, Pearce goes on a journey across six continents to rediscover what conservation in the twenty-first century should be about. Pearce explores ecosystems from remote Pacific islands to the United Kingdom, from San Francisco Bay to the Great Lakes, as he digs into questionable estimates of the cost of invader species and reveals the outdated intellectual sources of our ideas about the balance of nature. Pearce acknowledges that there are horror stories about alien species disrupting ecosystems, but most of the time, the tens of thousands of introduced species usually swiftly die out or settle down and become model eco-citizens. The case for keeping out alien species, he finds, looks increasingly flawed.
As Pearce argues, mainstream environmentalists are right that we need a rewilding of the earth, but they are wrong if they imagine that we can achieve that by reengineering ecosystems. Humans have changed the planet too much, and nature never goes backward. But a growing group of scientists is taking a fresh look at how species interact in the wild. According to these new ecologists, we should applaud the dynamism of alien species and the novel ecosystems they create.
In an era of climate change and widespread ecological damage, it is absolutely crucial that we find ways to help nature regenerate. Embracing the new ecology, Pearce shows us, is our best chance. To be an environmentalist in the twenty-first century means celebrating nature’s wildness and capacity for change.
David Holmgren
Bill Mollison and I have been of like mind on the use of species capable of naturalizing.
Bill Mollison and I have been of like mind on the use of species capable of naturalizing.
This view of agricultural weeds within organics was influential in the permaculture concept of ‘pioneer plants’. In particular,
Fast growing leguminous shrubs and trees were recognized for their capacity to build biomass, stabilize and improve soils and ameliorate microclimate for the establishment of long lived ‘food forests’.
In the same way that the organic pioneers recognized the value of herbaceous agricultural weeds, we recognized the value of woody pioneer species, many of which were being identified in the new category of ‘environmental weeds’ considered to be a threat to natural ecosystems.
These psycho-social factors, combined with the prevailing view within the biological science community, led to the belief that so called invasive species were a major threat to Australian and global biodiversity.
As the concept of indigeneity gained status as a way to evaluate biodiversity, naturalized species were increasingly characterized as invasives, aliens or environmental weeds. This perspective has consolidated as a new scientific orthodoxy that treats naturalized species as forms of biological pollution or a negative measure of biodiversity. Consequently, it is common that sites where naturalized species predominate are treated as having very low biodiversity value even though the total number of species may be very high.
These psycho-social factors, combined with the prevailing view within the biological science community, led to the belief that so called invasive species were a major threat to Australian and global biodiversity.
As the concept of indigeneity gained status as a way to evaluate biodiversity, naturalized species were increasingly characterized as invasives, aliens or environmental weeds. This perspective has consolidated as a new scientific orthodoxy that treats naturalized species as forms of biological pollution or a negative measure of biodiversity. Consequently, it is common that sites where naturalized species predominate are treated as having very low biodiversity value even though the total number of species may be very high.
There is collected evidence that confirms the impact of animal introductions, but refutes the idea that plant introductions have coincided with major loss of native species
I see Permaculture as prefiguring a revival of interest in both native and migrant species as valuable resources in the energy descent future.
In less intensively managed landscapes the renewed value from naturalized species, e.g. willow for animal fodder, could see more people actively spreading potentially useful species.
In less intensively managed landscapes the renewed value from naturalized species, e.g. willow for animal fodder, could see more people actively spreading potentially useful species.
The multifunction nature of species selection in Permaculture often means locally indigenous or even Australian native species will not do the job.
For example, in many environments, shelterbelt designs may require deciduous species to avoid long winter shadows over crops.
Additionally, a need for fire retardant and animal fodder species would lead to well proven exotics, such as elms and oaks, while no Australian species can match these criteria.
For example, in many environments, shelterbelt designs may require deciduous species to avoid long winter shadows over crops.
Additionally, a need for fire retardant and animal fodder species would lead to well proven exotics, such as elms and oaks, while no Australian species can match these criteria.
Conciliation biology recognizes that many non native species are permanent, that outcomes of native–non native interactions will vary depending on the scale of assessment and the values assigned to the biotic system, and that many non native species will perform positive functions in one or more contexts.
Geoff Lawton
I think it is necessary to have a more open mind and to have an action oriented towards the treatment of diseases and not symptoms.
When someone has a headache, modern medicine says it's because the body is deficient in aspirin.
But when we go for a more holistic medical approach we realize that there is an origin to the headache.
If we look at these problems with invasive species we see that they are a symptom and that the cause is something else entirely.
What we usually have is an open wound that needs to be healed before Nature bleeds to death and native species are unable to intervene because the damage is beyond their ability to repair.
This happens everywhere because people everywhere persistently create this damage.
The gorse (Giesta) in New Zealand is a classic example.
The gorse is a prickly legume native to Europe, but a very dominant invader in New Zealand.
Following policies similar to those in Europe, New Zealand farmers fought gorse for years and years without success but now it is understood, as more studies come out on the matter, that gorse can be used as the main pioneer plant to restore New Zealand ecology.
Some farmers did nothing to the gorse and used it as pasture for cows and sheep.
As the plants fixed nitrogen and organic matter in the soil, a mosaic of wild tobacco began to appear and the birds that eat wild tobacco seeds are birds that spread seeds of forest species, so patches of forest began to appear.
These patches of forest reduced the population of wild tobacco and gorse by shading and restored the balance.
This happens everywhere, but if the symptom is attacked when it appears and the cause is not analyzed, it will always be present.
And this is good news for chemical companies, good news for those who like to declare war on species.
Geoff Lawton
I think it is necessary to have a more open mind and to have an action oriented towards the treatment of diseases and not symptoms.
When someone has a headache, modern medicine says it's because the body is deficient in aspirin.
But when we go for a more holistic medical approach we realize that there is an origin to the headache.
If we look at these problems with invasive species we see that they are a symptom and that the cause is something else entirely.
What we usually have is an open wound that needs to be healed before Nature bleeds to death and native species are unable to intervene because the damage is beyond their ability to repair.
This happens everywhere because people everywhere persistently create this damage.
The gorse (Giesta) in New Zealand is a classic example.
The gorse is a prickly legume native to Europe, but a very dominant invader in New Zealand.
Following policies similar to those in Europe, New Zealand farmers fought gorse for years and years without success but now it is understood, as more studies come out on the matter, that gorse can be used as the main pioneer plant to restore New Zealand ecology.
Some farmers did nothing to the gorse and used it as pasture for cows and sheep.
As the plants fixed nitrogen and organic matter in the soil, a mosaic of wild tobacco began to appear and the birds that eat wild tobacco seeds are birds that spread seeds of forest species, so patches of forest began to appear.
These patches of forest reduced the population of wild tobacco and gorse by shading and restored the balance.
This happens everywhere, but if the symptom is attacked when it appears and the cause is not analyzed, it will always be present.
And this is good news for chemical companies, good news for those who like to declare war on species.
Ernst Gotsch
DO EGO-CENTRISMO AO ECO-CENTRISMO.
HV - Ernst vamos plantar a agrofloresta?
EG - Sim...podemos começar.
HV - Qual planta voçê quer plantar primeiro?
EG - Vamos plantar esse chorão da areia por todas partes, ela é bem bonitinha.
HV - Ernst usar essa planta vai trazer muitos problemas para mim.
EG - Não se preocupe, Natureza não precisa passaporte...só o humano inventou passaporte.
Voçê quer trabalhar para a natureza ou para o humano?
Portugal 2011
Entrevista ao professor Francisco Carrapiço
Olá Professor
Sou um aficionado da regeneração ecológica e encontrei o seu trabalho na internet sobre a azola e fiquei fascinado
gostaria de saber mais sobre as suas ideias e sobre o papel desta planta no contexto das alterações climáticas e de regeneração de ecossistemas
o seu trabalho é muito interessante na investigação desta mal amada planta
Bom dia, espero que esteja tudo bem consigo. Quais as questões que desejava colocar?
Não, já que Azolla forma uma simbiose com uma cianobactéria fixadora de azoto atmosférico pelo que não depende da presença de azoto no meio para se desenvolver.
eu digo crescimento desenfreado
nao entendo porque cria esse desequilibrio
penso que tem mais a ver com o ecossistema estar desequilibrado
Eu compreendo a sua dúvida. O desenvolvimento anormal da planta está relacionado com a presença de fósforo na água. O azoto no meio pode ser em alguns casos um factor de inibição no desenvolvimento.
o crescimento desenfreado tem mais a ver com a presença anormal de fosforo e não de nitrogeneo
a presença de nitrogenio inibe o seu crescimento?
Sim. Foi o que sucedeu em 1993 e tem vindo a suceder anualmente no Guadiana e no Tejo. O azoto que a planta necessita para o seu desenvolvimento é fornecido pela cianobactéria que o retira directamente da atmosfera e o passa para a planta na forma de compostos azotados
ela não colhe o azoto da agua mas sim da atmosfera?
e se a agua estiver em movimento e for aerobica e tiver altos niveis de gazes na superficie
Pode tb utilizar algum azoto da água, mas é independente deste processo já que a comunidade de cianobactérias que vive em simbiose no interior das folhas da planta é suficiente para fornecer todo o azoto que a planta precisa. A folha funciona como um bioreactor que converte o azoto atmosférico em compostos azotados que são utilizados pelo pteridofito.
sendo assim com agua com niveis normais de potassio o seu crescimento não será desenfreado?
ela limpa o fosforo da agua e acumula nas suas folhas?
Exactamente
o resto da comunidade cientifica pensa da mesma forma que nós?
Em que aspecto?
entendem que é uma planta fitodepuradora e que o seu crescimento desenfreado tem a ver com aguas contaminadas
Sim, penso que maioritariamente, embora vejam fundamentalmente os aspectos negativos do seu desenvolvimento quando forma blooms
não estão conscientes dos processos biológicos?
nem consciencia do ecossistema?
ou querem esconder que as aguas estao contaminadas
será isso?
Há ainda um grande desconhecimento destes processos biológicos e em relação aos impactes ambientais a situação é ainda mais complicada. O desenvolvimento anormal da planta significa de facto que o problema está no meio onde a planta se desenvolve e isso frequentemente é menosprezado.
esse nivel de ignorancia é um perigo
será que o memso se aplica a todas as plantas invasoras?
são reguladoras de ecossistema?
Em relação às outras plantas invasoras, não podemos generalizar, mas o aparecimento e desenvolvimento duma invasora é normalmente um sinal de alerta dum desequilíbrio ambiental.
os conservacionistas não entendem isto
e cria muita separação no movimento ecológico
perde se imensa energia nessa guerra
o foco devia ser o ecossistema e não a planta isolada
Sem dúvida
é como que dizer que a natureza faz coisas erradas
quando a actividade humana é o maior vector de desequilibrio
Tem de haver um equilíbrio
acho este tema crucial
é preciso promover Conciliation biology
Novel ecosystem
A solução não passa por dar “aspirinas” para resolver um problema que é muito mais profundo e complexo
Espero que tenha sido positiva a nossa conversa.
Tudo bom para si. Abraço
Mais informação AQUI
The azola example
Outros exemplos
My story with
The Monarch Butterfly
"The Planet of humans" revolutionary information about the new green world
Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans,
a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America.
This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.
Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?
No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine"). This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.
Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
Fundraise with we the trees
Be part of CSE Comunity Supported Education
