4 ms·
Answering my own question. From Wiki article: > The primary aim of Pleistocene Park is to recreate the mammoth steppe (ancient taiga/tundra grasslands that wer
by dmos62 6y ago
Answering my own question. From Wiki article:
> The primary aim of Pleistocene Park is to recreate the mammoth steppe (ancient taiga/tundra grasslands that were widespread in the region during the last ice age). The key concept is that animals, rather than climate, maintained that ecosystem. Reintroducing large herbivores to Siberia would then initiate a positive feedback loop promoting the reestablishment of grassland ecosystems. This argument is the basis for rewilding Pleistocene Park's landscape with megafauna that were previously abundant in the area, as evidenced by the fossil record.
> ...
> Zimov and colleagues argue for a reversed order of environmental change in the mammoth steppe. Humans, with their constantly improving technology, overhunted the large herbivores and led to their extinction and extirpation.[8][9][11][12] Without herbivores grazing and trampling over the land, mosses, shrubs and trees were able to take over and replace the grassland ecosystem.[8][9][11][12] If the grasslands were destroyed because herbivore populations were decimated by human hunting, then "it stands to reason that those landscapes can be reconstituted by the judicious return of appropriate herbivore communities."
> ...
> A secondary aim is to research the climatic effects of the expected changes in the ecosystem. Here the key concept is that some of the effects of the large herbivores, such as eradicating trees and shrubs or trampling snow, will result in a stronger cooling of the ground in the winter, leading to less thawing of permafrost during summer and thereby less emission of greenhouse gases.
- rob74 6y agoWell, that's the question then: whether the globally negative effect of eradicating trees which bind CO2 isn't worse than the local positive effect of "trampling the snow [which] will result in a stronger cooling of the ground". My completely unqualified gut feeling: if the climate warms enough, no amount of trampling will save the permafrost...
- jonnycomputer 6y agoThe carbon storage of grasslands should not be underestimated however. Most of it is sequestered underground, where it is less vulnerable to wildfire too.
- regularfry 6y agoGrassland also sequesters CO2 - more than forests, by some measures. I'd be more interested in how much methane all these new ruminants were going to produce.
- cameron_b 6y agoMost of the studies and methods suggest that rotational grazing or better yet, roaming herds, contribute far more in soils and biodiversity than methane production. Any time you see cows standing in dirt and mud - that is absolutely not what we're talking about. We're talking about the original American Bison herds of (hundred-)thousands who would move across enormous ranges taking grasses from feet to inches, and fertilizing its re-growth as they move. It makes room for accelerated growth of the grass, right when it is most nutritious and stagnant. Prairie and Savanna ecosystems are far more complex than I initially thought. The large animals are not "big lawnmowers" and it isn't "just grass" that they are working with. The soil is a huge ecosystem of its own, and what we're experiencing globally on many fronts (climate, food security, general increased toxicity of air and water) are largely connected to soil failure from our hubris at thinking we can cultivate the green stuff on top with little understanding of what happens underneath.
- modo_mario 6y agoIntensive meat production as we know it isn't exactly all that great either due to all the methane it puts out there and i'd expect it to easily outstrip all the benefits gained from the trampling and cooler ground due to less shrubbery. We need to pump less greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
- ianai 6y agoI don’t see why it needs to be intensive meat production when it could be just introducing megafauna.
- chr1 6y ago1. We do not have any megafauna to introduce yet 2. If we find a method to restore mammoths, producing large enough number of these animals will take hundreds of years 3. the meat that we do not produce in arctic, is produced in tropics at the cost of destruction of much more diverse and useful forests. But it also doesn't need to be "intensive" and can be free range.
- cameron_b 6y agoMammoth would be great, but a few that would work there could be Bison / Buffalo Polar - Grissly bear cross Horses Wolves Arctic ( Alaska ) paper from USGS - https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70115138 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70115138
- SyzygistSix 6y agoSo bring the Wooly Mammoth back from extinction? For the sake of the environment, of course.
- chr1 6y agoThere is a group actively working on this [1]. Most exciting part is the work on constructing an artificial uterus to gestate the embryos, which can be a first step for doing the same for people too. [1] https://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/progress/ https://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/progress/
- roter 6y agoBoreal forests have a complex interaction with the climate system. The masking impact of trees on the snow underneath means the albedo or reflectivity of a boreal forest during winter is quite low -> absorption of heat in contrast to a tundra where the snow is fully exposed -> reflection of heat. Bonan 2008 [0] is an excellent discussion of the land surface heat balance globally. A google search for the title should give you a few links to a readable PDF. [0] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1444.full https://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1444.full