We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website. You can decide for yourself which categories you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available.
Further information can be found in our privacy policy.
Recent Comments
Very interesting perspective!
As this type of problem would be perceived in agroecology here in Brazil, the nematode is not the cause, but a symptom of a more complex or systemic problem. We would commonly say that the system is sick, creating conditions for ecological imbalances — such as pests, invasive species, etc. — to take hold.
See if what I say next makes any sense.
When considering a set of factors, such as soil degradation, water stress, and low species diversity, which are considered to be contributing factors to the problem, I think this is the case.
So, I wonder if removing affected trees would be a palliative solution or induce positive feedback by contributing to the reduction of vegetation cover and, therefore, of the system that regulates infiltration and evapotranspiration, in addition to exposing more soil.
In addition to palliative measures, would it be interesting to adopt management actions aimed at promoting a richer and more functional ecological structure, as is done in agroecology, especially in the case of agroforestry?
These approaches have been shown to promote an enrichment of ecosystem services, such as soil quality and function, water availability and biodiversity enrichment, i.e. the same factors mentioned as problems in the text.
Perhaps agroecology approaches can contribute to other fields, such as the management of natural ecosystems.
Does this make sense?
Dear David,
Thank you for your comments and considerations!
If it makes sense, consider the following:
In terms of how an area is typically restored through agroecological approaches, it is important to understand ecological succession in the managed area.
Using this knowledge and the different species identified for each stage of succession, it is possible to promote the density and diversity necessary to restore or build a dynamic and functional vegetation structure.
In this way, it is hoped that the health of the system will arise as an emergent property, improving as the system matures.
I wish you every success in your project!
Beautiful text! Thank you for sharing your perspective! It makes a lot of sense.
Very interesting perspective!
As this type of problem would be perceived in agroecology here in Brazil, the nematode is not the cause, but a symptom of a more complex or systemic problem. We would commonly say that the system is sick, creating conditions for ecological imbalances — such as pests, invasive species, etc. — to take hold.
See if what I say next makes any sense.
When considering a set of factors, such as soil degradation, water stress, and low species diversity, which are considered to be contributing factors to the problem, I think this is the case.
So, I wonder if removing affected trees would be a palliative solution or induce positive feedback by contributing to the reduction of vegetation cover and, therefore, of the system that regulates infiltration and evapotranspiration, in addition to exposing more soil.
In addition to palliative measures, would it be interesting to adopt management actions aimed at promoting a richer and more functional ecological structure, as is done in agroecology, especially in the case of agroforestry?
These approaches have been shown to promote an enrichment of ecosystem services, such as soil quality and function, water availability and biodiversity enrichment, i.e. the same factors mentioned as problems in the text.
Perhaps agroecology approaches can contribute to other fields, such as the management of natural ecosystems.
Does this make sense?
Wow!! Very, very interesting!
Consider the following excerpt from the text:
"In turn, these new scenario runs reveal, however, a large sensitivity of mapping climate change impacts from one crop to the other, which we will need to take into account in future research."
Is there a relationship between this finding and the fact that the climate will become more variable and unpredictable?
I really liked the text!
Thinking about what was presented in the text, about the discussion started in 2012, for me who live in Brazil it is quite frustrating that concepts such as sustainability, resilience and transformation virtually do not exist in the vocabulary of the different political sectors until today, much less in practice. Eventually the authorities make use the term sustainability, but the understanding of this concept seems rather limited and nebulous, and often unwanted. And considering the current political scenario, I have the feeling that we will retreat about half a century in relation to the issues that are so worrying in the advance towards the Anthropocene. Our current political authorities seem to have come from the Middle Ages.
It seems like we are living a nightmare that will last 4 years. It sounds paradoxical to me to live in the country where we have the greatest potential for sustainable development and protection of biodiversity and to be governed by people who do not see and are completely unprepared for it.