permaculture

[neshura <neshura@gmail.com>]

Goodness that sounds like quite a challenge, Claude! My point about a
long succession period is mostly anthropocentric, not meant as an
argument against anything you said. Every plant has its everchanging
place, and sometimes that place is as a contributor to soil fertility
via the compost pile. (For example, I may keep a kudzu plant around
because I like pudding, and I DO like pudding a lot, but I will take
measures to manage its growth if I'm doing this within an artificially
constrained ecology like a suburban backyard governed by an HOA.)

It sounds like you have a pretty good plan in place, to try and keep
some of the reed buffer zone intact for the sake of the pond, as well
as several redundant measures to deal with your run-off. I'm actually
curious to hear more about the challenges of designing a thoughtful
golf course ecology. If you have a URL or other information, my
off-list email is neshura@gmail.com.

Thanks,
Amanda 


On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:32:04 -0500, Claude William Genest
<genest@pivot.net> wrote:
> Great input thanks.
> 
> A few more details : The pond exists as a result of massive landfilling
> with contaminated soil - It is a man made pond in a man dmaged soil so
> there is nothing "natural " about it apart from the miracle of its
> having naturalized itself IN SPITE of our best efforts....
> 
> Secondly, I am the eco designer for what will be Quebec's first
> eco-golf course- our mandate stipulates that what we do will not
> negatively impact existing eco-systems - Our project is attached to the
> pond - I am concerned that in removing an exisiting, natural
> buffer/filter/protection, they city is settign us up to fail "look
> you've contaminated the pond"....
> 
> In terms of the length of succession being as long as fifty years, I
> fail to see the point ? How long does it take to make an inch of
> topsoil ? Succession will happen in its own good time ?
> 
> I also fail to see why not bring up Gaia theory ? It either works or it
> doesn't ?
> 
> That said, you are absolutely right that the best approach is
> non-confrontational and my objective is to get a compromise - I only
> ask that ALL the reeds not be removed and to know what they will be
> replaced with.... From there I will propose earthworks to build
> redundant swales in which to channel and fliter the waters BEFORE they
> get to the pond and your suggestion to add external mechanical aeration
> is excellent.
> 
> Claude
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 18, 2005, at 02:28 PM, neshura wrote:
> 
> > The exotics/invasives is not something I'm willing to touch right now
> > (being wholly new to the list), since I think it necessitates a more
> > abstract discussion. However, it seems to me to be a matter of
> > perspective on the pond; the principle of succession is well
> > established, but the chronology is not. It may be that the local
> > particulars of this pond have led to a relatively stable micro-ecology
> > where the reeds will be a highly dominant species for 1 year or 50
> > years.
> >
> > The right and necessity of tweaking one's local environment is as near
> > and dear to permaculture, it seems, as the principle of succession.
> > The biologist has the ability and seemingly the responsibility for
> > tweaking this pond. It would seem to me that one excellent approach
> > that avoids a head-on confrontation would be to avoid arguing Gaia and
> > instead to research the local patterns of succession or the succession
> > patterns in the reeds' native environment. Perhaps the reeds are
> > intolerant to highly oxygenated water, and an approach that oxygenates
> > the water through another means will bring them to a tolerable level
> > without tearing them all out. Perhaps speeding up succession, or a
> > fountain, or fish that nibble on the plant roots...
> >
> > In my experience, folks rarely change immediately from a brute-force
> > perspective to a do-nothing perspective from being argued into it. But
> > succession applies to thought patterns as well as to plants; it is a
> > trivial matter, usually, to offer a slightly tweaked view of the
> > original plan, and later a do-less perspective, and thus ease people
> > into a more permaculturist way of thinking. A practicing biologist
> > wooed to the side of permaculture may be more valuable to the earth in
> > the long run than the pond ever could be.
> >
> > Best of luck!
> > -Amanda Gilbert
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:32:11 -0500, Claude William Genest
> > <genest@pivot.net> wrote:
> >> Hi Kevin,
> >>
> >> I am being told that the night time respiration excedes the day time
> >> inspiration.... The biologist feels that these plants, being invasive,
> >> are crowding out other indigenous plants and prohibiting biodiversity
> >> and therefore man should intervene to remove them and to replant a
> >> variety of plants....
> >>
> >> I will attempt to make the argument that according to the Gaia theory,
> >> the earth is intelligently choosing the exact plants she needs in
> >> exact
> >> quantities to repair, restore, regenerate and reorganize itself and
> >> that furthermore the principle of succession is well established and
> >> that therefore a plant's inasiveness is only as long lived as its
> >> uselfulness in  preparing the soil for the next generation...
> >> On Friday, March 18, 2005, at 09:38 AM, Kevin Topek wrote:
> >>
> >>> Claude,
> >>>
> >>> Wetland plant roots provide conduits for air, which includes oxygen,
> >>> to
> >>> enter the soil. During the day the plants produce oxygen and at night
> >>> they
> >>> use it in respiration. A pond without plants is not healthy.
> >>> "Invasives" are
> >>> merely aggressive successional species that colonize disturbed areas.
> >>> The
> >>> only time plants rob oxygen is when they die and rot in an aerobic
> >>> fashion.
> >>> The cycling between aerobic and anaerobic states is the point of a
> >>> wetland.
> >>> What is the issue for the municipal biologist. Does she want to plant
> >>> other
> >>> plants there? It is not about species, but function.
> >>>
> >>> Kevin & Dr. Bitchface (Mindy)
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Claude William Genest" <genest@pivot.net>
> >>> To: <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:28 AM
> >>> Subject: [permaculture] reeds & Oxygen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Can anyone tell me to to what extent reeds either add or remove
> >>>> oxygen
> >>>> from a pond ? I am meeting with a municipal biologist next week who
> >>>> is
> >>>> hell bent on removing ALL the  reeds around a pond and her principal
> >>>> arguments are that this must be done because the reeds are
> >>>> "invasive"
> >>>> and deplete oxygen - I thought the roots pumped out oxygen allowing
> >>>> a
> >>>> place for water purifying bacteria to live ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>
> >>>> Claude
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> permaculture mailing list
> >>>> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> >>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> permaculture mailing list
> >>> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> permaculture mailing list
> >> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > permaculture mailing list
> > permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
>