As the world’s climate changes, the rate of ocean warming is accelerating at an unprecedented rate, sea levels are rising and many ocean species are dying out. However, one species that is not feeling the heat, but is, in fact, thriving in warm waters spurred on by the climate crisis, is the jellyfish. On World Jellyfish Day, which every year falls on November 3, here are some fascinating facts about this fascinating species.

—

Global climate change has been causing sustained warming of the oceans since 1970. It has likely been happening at an increasingly rapid rate since 1993, and with no reduction in intensity, according to the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Despite this, the jellyfish is thriving in the fertiliser-rich, deoxygenated warm ocean waters. 

Jellyfish Facts

Putting a number on jellyfish populations is difficult due to a lack of quantitative records. However, a study showed that jellyfish populations have increased in at least 68 ecosystems around the world since 1950 and “are one of the few groups of organisms that may benefit from the continued anthropogenic impacts on the world’s biosphere.” 

Jellyfish populations fluctuate in blooming cycles naturally. However, the recent growth  is correlated with man-made changes to the environment. Blooms of the giant jellyfish (Nemopilema nomurai), which have historically happened in Japan once every 40 or so years, have become a yearly occurrence since the early 2000s. The animals cause many problems, such as clogging fishing nets, affecting tourism in places that rely heavily on its oceans, stinging people, killing fish by lodging within gills and clogging cooling screens in power plants, amongst others. In June 2018, over 1,000 people were stung by jellyfish in a single week in Florida. 

You might also like: The Destructive Truth Behind Aquariums

Jellyfish are also particularly dangerous near nuclear coastal power plants. To prevent a disaster whereby a swarm of jellies block an underwater cooling system, costly shut-downs, such as in Torness (UK, 2011), or Oskarshamn (Sweden, 2013) are necessary. 

The gelatinous animals owe their explosion in numbers to a variety of factors, as outlined in a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists and below.

Jellyfish Thriving in Warm Waters

The warm waters are forcing tropical coral reefs to seek more temperate regions, a migration that has been happening at a rate of 8.7 miles per year since the 1930s. Migrating coral makes way for other marine species – including jellyfish – to extend their habitable territory. This throws the local ecosystems off-balance as jellyfish join the competition for zooplankton, as well as hinder the lives of fish by eating their eggs, larvae and juveniles, according to the Earth Institute of the University of Colombia. Increases in populations of non-indigenous species are possibly the most damaging of all.  

Additionally, oceans are dumping grounds for carbon, which further aid jellyfish. IPCC models show that as the concentration of atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the century has increased, so has the oceanic absorption that has led to warm waters for jellyfish. It is estimated that within this time frame, oceans have absorbed 20-30% of total man-made emissions globally.

The rise of CO2 in the atmosphere means that more CO2 gets absorbed into seawater. This carbon reacts with water molecules to form carbonic acid, which then breaks down into hydrogen and bicarbonate. The presence of all these hydrogen ions this reaction creates causes the water to become more acidic. Gases dissolve more readily in cooler waters and so acidification is more pronounced in the Arctic and Southern oceans. This acidity inhibits coral growth and causes reefs to die off in a process called ‘coral bleaching,’ allowing jellyfish to roam and multiply freely.

Anthropogenic influences significantly impact jellyfish populations. Fertiliser and effluent sewage from land cause oversaturation of water with nutrients, particularly around coastal estuaries – a process known as eutrophication – enabling excessive algal growth. Decaying algae depletes water of oxygen. Jellyfish are able to tolerate low concentrations of oxygen and with plentiful food, they continue to multiply, while other fish suffocate and die. Additionally, coastal development, the building of docks, boats anchored in harbours and underwater infrastructure provide perfect surfaces for breeding jellyfish to attach to in their polyp stage.

Finally, the overfishing of species which prey on jellyfish, such as tuna and sea turtles, means that jellyfish are able to breed undeterred by predators. According to Dr Callum Roberts, a marine biologist and author of the seminal book “The Ocean of Life,” humans take 50% more fish than thought – “a staggering total of about 130 million tonnes a year.” He explains that the issue of fishery mismanagement and the release of misleading statistics can lead us to circumstances ‘beyond our capacity to cope.’ 

Another aspect spurring on the jellyfish’s population growth is the fact that at least five known species are effectively immortal. 

The phenomenon was first observed in Turritopsis dohrnii, the ‘immortal jellyfish.’ Not unlike the mythical phoenix, from the dead body of a jellyfish springs a new one into life. 

Dr Lisa-ann Gershwin, director of the Marine Stinger Advisory Service in Tasmania and jellyfish researcher, explains on a BBC Earth podcast episode: 

“When Turritopsis dies its body begins to decay, as it would, but then the cells reaggregate into polyps – it skips to the alternate part of its life cycle, the earlier life stage. These little polyps keep cloning and they can cover an entire dock in a matter of few days! Some types can form whole ‘shrubs’ and when the conditions are right they bloom in vast numbers like flowers and ‘bud off’ baby jellyfish.”

The more common moon jelly has also been shown to defy death. Observing the same ability in both is a surprising, complex and hopeful discovery. 

With the rapid expansion of these populations, scientists and policymakers are brainstorming ways of making the animals useful. The GoJelly project proposes employing the creatures’ ability to use their mucus to bind microplastic. The researchers intend to develop a microplastics filter to be used in wastewater treatment plans and in factories where microplastic is produced, which could help prevent much of these particles from getting into marine ecosystems and harming wildlife further.  

You might also like: 11 of the Most Endangered Species in the Ocean in 2022

The post World Jellyfish Day: How This Fascinating Species Is Thriving in Warm Waters appeared first on Earth.Org.

The Anthropocene is the unofficial current geological epoch, defined by human dominance over the Earth’s ecosystems. It is said to have replaced the most recent, scientifically confirmed Holocene, which began around 11 700 years ago. The word  ‘Anthropocene’ comes from Greek ‘anthropo’, meaning ‘human’, and ‘cene’ which translates to ‘new’. Though the idea of a new geological epoch, demarked by rapid global environmental changes, is itself several decades old, the term Anthropocene was made popular in 2000 by Eugene F. Stoermer and Paul Crutzen. 

—

Scientists have not yet come to a unanimous agreement as to when and how the transition into the Anthropocene took place. One common proposition for a start date is 1784 – the invention of the first steam engine by James Watts, which became the catalyst for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. In the centuries that followed, this led to mass extraction of Earth’s non renewable fossil fuels and other resource reserves, drastically altering the ozone layer, leading to the formation of acid rain, and extinction of species due to habitat destruction. The analysis of air trapped in Arctic cores revealed that the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane gas released into the atmosphere since that period were highest in the last 400 000 years. Another, perhaps more popular timestamp of when the Anthropocene overtook Holocene is the mid-20th century, when the testing and use of nuclear weapons during World War II left a distinctive radioactive mark in soil samples worldwide, which is predicted to last at least 100, 000 years. Due to the speed of such, and other, human activities impacting the atmosphere over the last 60 years, this period falls into what is often referred to as the “Great Acceleration.”

You might also like: Natural Capital is Missing From Climate Policy- Study

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans have only appeared in the last 200 000 years, which is very brief on the geological scale. There are 7.6 billion people in the world and counting. In less than 1% of the Earth’s lifetime, humans – in fact, only a largely western 25% of them – managed to significantly change the planet. We are facing accelerated warming of the climate and all the ramifications it shall bring. The nitrogen cycle has been disturbed to an extent unobserved in the last 2.5 billion years –  more nitrogen is now being ‘fixed’ artificially for use in fertilisers than produced in nature. Over 75% of the Earth’s land has been markedly degraded, which could extend up to 95% by 2050. 10% of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions are due to deforestation alone. If the trend continues, the goal of limiting the rise in global temperature to 2°C will become unattainable. It is in this light of unequivocal human alteration of the environment, that the idea of the Anthropocene has emerged as a lucrative proposition. But is it a viable one? 

The issue with officially declaring the Anthropocene as a geological epoch is that, for any time period to be qualified as a new epoch, it must leave behind indisputable changes to the rock layers in the Earth’s crust, which can withstand millennia. If the Anthropocene is happening now, we cannot state with full certainty whether it can be qualified as such since not enough time has passed to be able to tell whether this ‘age of man’ shall, in fact, leave remains in the rock strata indefinitely. Stratigraphists – scientists who study rock layers – must detect a clear mark, also known as a ‘golden spike’, in the fossil record before they are able to announce the end of the Holocene. Recently, a panel of 34 scientists from the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) voted to recognise the Anthropocene as an official epoch. They plan to fully formulate such a proposal by 2021, and submit it to the International Commission on Stratigraphy, which has the final say on geological timeline matters. The AWG believes that it can garner enough evidence of stratigraphic importance until then and that either characteristic emissions or radioactive particles could be that ‘golden spike’. Additionally, plastics have recently joined the debate as a potential key marker, since they do not biodegrade. Plastics have been identified in the fossil record since the 1940s. In particular, microplastic pollution in the ocean has a high chance of depositing in the seabed rock in corners of the world inaccessible to humans. Yet, many still believe that, however great our accomplishments as a species, they will not leave a fossil record nearly significant enough to mark a whole new epoch. 

Whether stratigraphists claim the Anthropocene as a true epoch or not does not bear as much importance as the reasons why it was proposed in the first place. We have undeniably altered the conditions of the planet in unprecedented ways, which, for a while now, has been raising the question of ‘What now?’ The Anthropocene might turn out to be no more than a useful addition to the terminology of climate debates; a mere thought experiment or a factual geological event. Either way it serves to bring awareness to the consequences of our actions to the planet and encourages us to adopt responsibility as the Earth’s stewards. 

The post What is the Anthropocene Epoch? appeared first on Earth.Org.

With the global population forecast to reach 9.8 billion by 2050, the question of developing effective means of matching the food supply with demand has been on the agenda prior to the Green Revolution. The inability of conventional agriculture to achieve the necessary 70-100% increase in productivity to feed the world by 2050 is worrisome. Rising to the challenge, scientists and agricultural giants have turned their attention to soil- the most complex ecosystem on earth- and its humble microbes to boost crop yields. 

—

There are around 50 billion microbes in a spoonful of soil. The soil microbiome, consisting largely of bacteria and fungi, greatly influences plants by forming associations with their roots. The zone of soil which fosters interactions between microorganisms and plant roots is known as  the rhizosphere. Here, symbiotic relationships, crucial to the health of crops, are formed.

In 1888 Martinus Beijerinck isolated a type of symbiotic bacteria called rhizobium, which has been implemented into farming practices to boost crop yields as a natural nitrogen fertiliser ever since. Rhizobium colonises roots of legumes, forming characteristic nodules, and turns nitrogen from the air into a ‘bioavailable’ (easy for plants to absorb) form in the ground – a process known as nitrogen fixation. 

Microbes in the soil help to boost crop yields in a variety of ways. They are critical to nutrient cycling, particularly of phosphate, which is essential to crops and cannot be manufactured. There are bacteria which produce antibiotics that defend plants from harmful bacteria and some directly stimulate growth through phytohormones. Others induce epigenetic changes, meaning that they alter the physiology of a plant to the point of modifying its gene expression, making plants more productive and resilient to changes. 

You might also like: How Scientists Are Using the Internet To Better Track Animals

Microbes also provide plenty of indirect support. For example, they improve water retention by aggregating into sticky colonies called biofilms, which coat soil particles and trap the moisture within while simultaneously creating a fluffy, optimally-structured soil with tiny air pockets.  

Even more fascinating are fungi, notably a specific type called arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). AMF permeate the roots and the soil with long finger-like projections called hyphae, which act as extensions of the host’s roots, bringing in nutrients. Additionally, through this network of hyphae, collectively called mycelium, fungi protect crops against pathogens, reduce the impact of pollutants and offer greater resistance to environmental changes such as water stress, soil temperature, pH and more. In productive soil, the mycorrhizal mycelium is very developed and serves as a means of sophisticated communication and signalling between plants, like informing about any deficiencies in an area or sending warning signs of pest attacks. It can even increase plants’ resistance to pests. More than 90% of plants form some connections with AMF.  Inconspicuous AMF, themselves, can grow to enormous lengths. The largest organism on Earth is Armillaria ostoyae, a fungus spread over nearly 2 400 acres across the Malheur National Forest, US. 

As mentioned, such relationships of the rhizosphere are symbiotic, or based on reciprocity, meaning plants serve friendly microbes just as much in return. As Ben Brown, a researcher from Berkeley’s Lab working on the AR1K Smart Farm project, puts it, ‘they do an exceptional job of farming their microbiomes’, referencing how plants exude compounds to kill off harmful bacteria and provide carbohydrates for their allies to feed on. It is not far-fetched to compare the rhizosphere microbiome, in its role and importance, to that of a human gut microbiome. In fact, scientists involved in the project dubbed their microbial mixtures ‘soil probiotic’. 

In the early 1950s, Norman Borlaug created a high-yielding strain of wheat by genetically modifying the plant. This invention spurred experts and farmers to begin the Green Revolution, a large-scale effort to increase food production and prevent devastating famines in the 20th century. The use of new genetically modified (GM) crop varieties, requiring more nutrient and irrigation input, became the catalyst for the worldwide spread of intensive conventional agriculture. This meant extensive use of chemical fertilisers, a significant increase in water demand and the growth of monoculture cultivation. 

In Asia, the Green Revolution increased yields from 310 million in 1970 to 650 million tons by 1995. Despite a 60% growth in population over the same time period, wheat and rice became cheaper, caloric availability per person increased nearly 30%, and only an additional 4% of farmland was used. Because of these remarkable results, the predicted famine was prevented and in 1970, Dr. Borlaug was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. 

The momentary success of the Green Revolution is indisputable, but its legacy experienced today- land degradation, leaching and eutrophication, greenhouse gas emissions, and genetic diversity loss- impugn the idea of agricultural intensification as a viable solution.  

One of the problems with chemical fertilisers is that it replaces the soil microbes. When plants are simply given what they need, there is no incentive for them to form or maintain relationships with soil life, and so the network of connections disintegrates. Moreover, the cropping practices alone, for example tillage, impact the rhizosphere interactions. In the absence of microbes, crops rely solely on human imitation of their services, as it is done in industrial farming, which soon ceases to be economically or environmentally viable. Therefore, some of the world’s agricultural giants, like Monsanto and Novozymes, are investing in large-scale analyses of soil samples and testing out different mixtures of microbes to be used as seed coatings or soil amendments. As the aforementioned rhizobium, every microbe in the soil has a specific function. Hence scientists are trying out different combinations of microbes to find the optimum blend. In an interview for the Scientific American, these scientists expressed no intention of using GM organisms, but ones derived straight from soil. As a collective effort, 500 000 plots of US farmland were sown with seeds coated in 2 000 different mixtures of microbes in field trials unprecedented in scope. Increased crop yields were successfully obtained, and the companies predict that 50% of US farmland will be using some form of soil microbial crop aid by 2025. 

Healthy soils support healthy crops and produce high levels of soil organic matter (SOM) which stores carbon. Intensive industrial farming practices strip the land off of this organic matter. The buildup of SOM is very important, particularly at the time of global climate crisis, because it prevents carbon from being released into the atmosphere by keeping it in the soil instead. This and other forms of ‘carbon farming’, a recent article states, should be incentivised to decelerate global warming.

In summary, soil microbes not only boost crop yields but offer more resilience to the impacts of climate change. Hence, in answering the question of the future of posterity, the science points down to the soil with emphasis on ecological intensification. 

The post How Do Plants and Soil Microbes Work Together to Boost Crop Yields? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Clownfish face an unusually difficult challenge in the time of the climate crisis. While many species are at risk of becoming endangered or extinct with the predicted rise in temperature- 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, by a UN estimate– and the climatic changes associated with it, clownfish are particularly sensitive to even small, already-occurring alterations to their environment. Are we facing the extinction of clownfish?

—

Clownfish Shelter: How Does Climate Change Affect Coral Reefs?

The climate crisis is one of the most perplexing phenomena we face today, and its complications in various ecosystems are complex and many. With the seas warming, some marine creatures such as jellyfish are thriving while others, such as the beloved clownfish, face an unusually difficult challenge. 

Clownfish are a collection of 28 species of coral reef dwellers who owe their fame mainly to a single species, Amphiprion ocellaris, the bright orange fish remembered as Nemo. Otherwise known as anemone-fish, clownfish depend on a special type of coral reef creature, an algae-like animal called anemone. Like the corals on which they live and whose health they depend on, anemones are threatened by rising ocean temperatures and the resultant ecosystem damage. For example, in 2016, 93% of the Great Barrier Reef suffered extensive bleaching and many anemones died. 

You might also like: How Can The Great Barrier Reef be Saved?

‘Bleaching’ is a process that occurs when ocean temperatures exceed optimum levels and corals and anemones expel the microscopic algae residing in them and, as a result, lose the colour the algae gives them, and appear bleached white. According to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), a rise in sea temperatures of only 1.5 degrees Celsius is enough to wipe out 70% of coral reefs worldwide, and a 2 degree rise could lead to them being gone entirely.

Due to the buffering properties of water, marine ecosystems are known to provide a stable living environment. Hence clownfish have evolutionarily adapted well to a narrow set of unchanging conditions in their respective niches, or role, in an ecosystem. In a benign environment, this proves advantageous, however, in the event of the climate crisis and the changes it brings about, it makes the clownfish very vulnerable. Consequently, clownfish lack the genetic variation which would enable them to adapt to forthcoming habitat alterations. This is particularly alarming given the speed at which the seas are warming. Furthermore, coral reefs are the most vulnerable marine ecosystems. Found in shallow waters, they experience the warming effects much faster than the deeper sea strata.

How Do Clownfish Adapt to Their Environment?

The relationship between anemone and anemone-fish is a mutualistic one, meaning both parties need each other to live a safe and healthy existence. The fish help their host anemone breathe, provide nutrients, fertiliser from their waste and protect it from predators, such as the butterfly fish. In return, the anemones deter the fish’s predators with toxic algae-like projections and provide a home for the fish to breed and lay eggs in. This partnership, a study stated, is ‘demographically rigid and easily perturbed’ by overfishing and other human activities which damage coral reefs. A study has shown that total or even partial removal of anemone fish has ‘rapid and sustained negative effects’ on growth, reproduction and survival of anemones, and simultaneously decreases the level of productivity that the remaining members of the affected clownfish colony are able to reach.

As Dr. Poujol from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) stresses, whether a species propagates from one generation to the next depends solely on its reproductive success, that is, production of healthy and fertile offspring. The reproductive cycle of clownfish is very particular and complex. Usually, within a single anemone reside a single female and some males at different stages of development, only one of which is sexually active. If the female dies, the largest male takes her role and becomes a female. Some species of the fish are able to behaviourally adapt to anemone loss by sharing their host with others or inhabiting an anemone different to their usual preference. However, some, for example, Amphiprion latezonatus, will choose to live exclusively in a single species of anemone. This reported ‘lack of flexibility in host use’ can prove fatal. Acquiring an anemone home, in itself, is a difficult and time consuming process which involves the fish performing a special dance and covering themselves with mucus which ensures immunity against the toxicity of a target anemone. 

Furthermore, there are more species of anemone-fish than of anemones which adds to the complexity of possible implications. With the fish facing loss of host anemones due to climatic changes, it is their ability to cohabitate that can explain the high diversity still observed and that holds hope for their future survival. A study investigating the pattern of diversity in the Indo-Pacific followed 1 508 clownfish and found 377 which lived cohabitating almost exclusively in the Coral Triangle. The world’s diversity hotspot for anemonefish is in the Indonesian part of the Coral Triangle. The Madang region of Papua New Guinea is reportedly home to 9 species of anemonefish and 10 species of anemones, making it a spot with highest diversity for both.

Due to the popularity of Finding Nemo, clownfish are in high demand as aquarium pets and overfishing alone has already led to some local extinctions.  Additionally, overfishing causes ‘genetic drift’, an evolutionary process which reduces the genetic variability, and hence adaptability, even further. 

Although the future of clownfish and coral reefs is uncertain in the age of the climate crisis, it is not yet doomed. Clownfish are capable of living independently of anemones in the absence of predators, and are easily bred in captivity, hence their complete extinction is unlikely. However, extinction in the wild is possible, and indeed likely. 

The post Clownfish Unable to Adapt to the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say appeared first on Earth.Org.

Globally, abandoned agricultural land has become a pervasive phenomenon after years of unsustainable cultivation methods; among other factors, the use of chemical fertilisers has left land depleted to the point of no return. Initiatives to restore these lands to use as tools in the fight against the climate crisis are underway.

— 

In some instances, however, abandoned agricultural land is still arable and perhaps never fully cultivated but it is found in marginal locations where the prospects of quality life of farmers are poor. One of the main reasons for the abandonment is urbanisation. As a result, currently, more agricultural land is being abandoned than converted to it, particularly in North America and Western Europe. The global footprint of agriculture has been decreasing while the production output has been increasing, made possible by the intensification of cultivation methods.             

In light of the world’s climate crisis, it has become clear that fossil fuels are not the only resources threatening the planet’s sustainability. Water, clean air and arable land to grow food for an ever-growing world population are becoming increasingly scarce, and if ‘business as usual’ outputs continue, the challenges will soon become insurmountable. 

The world’s population has grown from 2.6 billion in 1950 to 8 billion today and is predicted to hit 9.7 billion by 2050. Human use affects over 70% of all ice-free land and about 25% of this land is subject to human-induced degradation, which is also exacerbated by climate change. 

Therefore, it is intuitive that the solution is also to be found in man’s hands.

As Richard Conniff summarises in an article for Yale360, between 1997 and 2018 the US has lost 98 000 square miles of farmland. China reportedly loses 7 700 square miles of precious agricultural land each year. By 2040, abandoned land in the EU could amount to 82 000 square miles- 11% of the land actively farmed at the beginning of the century. 

By planting trees in those areas, 25% of anthropogenic CO2 could be sequestered from the atmosphere while retaining water and bringing fertility and community back to the land. According to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) currently ‘one quarter to one third of land’s potential net primary production for food, feed, fibre, timber and energy’ is being used.

You might also like: Regenerative Agriculture: A New Beginning for Farmers

Abandoned Farmland Restoration

Many initiatives have been proposed and some put into practice successfully. There are examples of both large scale international projects, as well ‘grassroots’ approaches. One such global project- the Bonn Challenge– is a global effort to restore 350 million hectares of deforested and degraded land by 2030. The challenge also aims ‘to restore ecological integrity at the same time as improving human well-being through multifunctional landscapes’. It has been estimated that reaching the 2030 goal would generate USD 170 billion per year in net benefits from ‘watershed protection, improved crop yields and forest products, and could sequester up to 1.7 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually’.

A ‘grassroots’ example of these projects put into practice is the work of Dr Willie Smits in the forests of Kalimantan and Sulawesi, an island near Borneo. What Dr Smits has come to realise and articulate in his TED talk is that environmental degradation and environmental restoration differ only in the type and extent of human involvement in any projects which are beneficial to them, and affect the environment as a consequence.

This is the case particularly in developing countries where people are often willing to agree to environmental trade-offs for money (from selling land to foreign investors) or secure jobs (such as on oil palm plantations). 

Dr. Smits and his team from the Masarang Foundation developed an approach to restoration of degraded land into forests which the local community participates in and benefits from at all stages from planning to execution. The approach uses an integrated design wherein trees of valuable yield, such as the sugar palm, nitrogen-fixing plants, such as fodder, and other root and tree crops are planted in a grid sequence for maximum efficiency. This approach, focused on biodiversity, encourages the return of beneficial soil microbes and improves soil texture and the retention of nutrients and water. 

Not all land is suitable for reforestation and the data available  is largely confined to remote satellite sensing. This means that obtaining the larger picture does not distinguish between publicly and privately owned land, making the theory more complicated in practice. Additionally, initiatives are often poorly planned. For example, about 10% of countries participating in the Bonn Project have committed to reforest more land than they actually have available. Bearing in mind its limitations, this idea holds great potential for the future.

For successful restoration to take place, the end goal doesn’t always necessarily have to be a forest. A study published in Nature shows that in some cases grassland or savanna ecosystems are more optimal for carbon sequestration and storage because they are able to hold more carbon underground. These environments are also less prone to drought and fires.  

Abandoned land is able to naturally revert back to its original state on its own accord, as extensively described in Alan Weisman’s book The World Without Us. However, it can take hundreds of years for the land to regain its initial biodiversity and productivity. With the climate crisis pending and no more luxury of time, strategies for speeding up the process of regeneration are in demand. 

You might also like: Can Traditional Farming Withstand Another Summer of Record-Breaking Heatwaves?

The post Using Abandoned Agricultural Land to Help Save The Planet appeared first on Earth.Org.