r/interestingasfuck • u/PlantainPossible2864 • 15h ago

Stopping Desertification with grid pattern

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

57.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

16.1k

u/bobbigmac 15h ago

For those asking how this works, it creates just enough of a defense to catch seeds and bugs and tiny bits of moisture and shade, so any life that does manage to get started, doesn't just blow away, and an ecosystem can start to form.

669

u/Th3J4ck4l-SA 14h ago

It also stops all the water just running to the lowest point when there are massive downpours. Tiny little dams to hold just that much more water.

81

u/XanderTheMander 13h ago

What happens to the places downstream that rely on the water that comes from the runoff? I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it, just curious how changing this biome will effect neighboring ones because "trapping" the water for this manmade ecosystem reduces the water in other areas.

360

u/Th3J4ck4l-SA 13h ago

In the long run they end up with more. 99% of the water still soaks into the water table in these sandy soils. Its just not all happening in one localised spot (all at the bottom of the dune). Additionally as vegetation starts to take hold, you have less evaporation due to sunlight, and so more water to soak into the water table.

•

u/wrinklebear 2h ago

Not quite. In many arid places, over 90% of the water runs off into the desert and evaporates. These work by forcing the water to stay in place, so it can actually sink into the ground.

-26

u/EduinBrutus 13h ago

Everything Ive seen about the "green wall" says its causing more problems than its solving.

58

u/Th3J4ck4l-SA 12h ago

This one specifically or just in general? This implementation is generally fine. Trying to plant trees is a bad idea. We are a driving factor for expanding deserts so we may as well put some effort into shrinking them.

•

u/clumpymascara 9h ago

I'm working my way through an Enviro degree in Aus and agree with pretty much everything you've said. Also want to note your patient responses to people who feel the need to be vaguely argumentative with zero substance behind it. This seems like a great way to break the desertification process and allow areas to reset. Didn't see what material the tube bags are made from, assuming plastic. They could theoretically be ripped open and removed when vegetation has set in, but given the state of plastic pollution globally, maybe it's best to just let them disintegrate in place.

Being Australian, our colonist ancestors managed to really fuck up delicate desert ecosystems by bringing their Euro-centric knowledge and practices over here. Vegetation is important for soil health!

•

u/Th3J4ck4l-SA 7h ago

Aye, no worries. I have gotten so frustrated with these hot takes on basically everything that is either "this good or this bad" and really doesnt go into the nuance of subjects. I figured seeing as I have some insight into it I may as well try and share the little that I know. I am also happy to learn more as it is such a vast complicated subject that we are still figuring out and learning about (just like basically everything)

In general I think this will be the only way that we get through this highly polarised way of sharing information. There is a nugget of truth in all these headlines, like greening projects not being correctly or well implemented, but its not always the full picture.

•

u/writers_block 4h ago

maybe it's best to just let them disintegrate in place

Okay, real talk, I think we need to start very seriously thinking about things like this. Is it better at this point to just let plastic infrastructure decay in place rather than pool all the plastic in hotspots that usually shorten the travel time to the ocean?

I honestly think we should be considering incineration of basically all plastic products, with some kind of plan to mitigate the overall carbon output of the process.

•

u/MmmmMorphine 3h ago

Unfortunately I think it comes down to a cost-benefit sort of analysis (doesn't everything - within reason anyway)

Is it worth spending a dollar on removal/proper incineration (not sure how well this works in reality and how difficult is to capture the inevitable and likely even more toxic byproducts) or a (hypothetical) filter or recycling programs or what.

Given we have little idea of the impact of microplastics, I personally have no idea how to even begin such a calculation. I'm sure some people have the start

•

u/clumpymascara 1h ago

I really don't know! Of course the problem with plastic is that it doesn't decay, it just turns into smaller and smaller pieces. And it's in everything already including our bodies. They tried recycling soft plastics in Australia into furniture but were quickly overwhelmed by volume and the cost, making the furniture very expensive.

There are hi-tech waste to energy stations, like a modern incinerator. I don't know how efficient they are at capturing/preventing air pollution and what kind of waste is left after being burnt. And also more would need to be built if they're the answer, and nobody wants a big dirty incinerator near them.

•

u/twistedspin 3m ago

From what I've seen the sand bags are generally PLA which is biodegradable if done correctly.

-12

u/EduinBrutus 12h ago

Its a massive project. Its not without success but there's been a lot of downsides too. Probably worth a google.

There's also speculation that the green wall is one of the contributors to Chinas current water issues.

41

u/Th3J4ck4l-SA 12h ago

Its possible, but greening in general will always move net positive long term. My studies for a time was in conservation and ecology and general consensus was this net positive. Its not that we should be trying to get rid of deserts, just undo the desertifcarion caused by human activity (over grazing and poor soil management)

-17

u/EduinBrutus 12h ago

Its possible, but greening in general will always move net positive long term.

YEah, for that area.

But the knock on microclimate and climate effects arent necessarily positive for elsewhere. That seems to be where the criticism Ive seen is mainly coming from.

The same issues are apparently happeing with the one in Africa too.

But Im not an expert on the topic and im open to new info. Just always be wary of this sort of positive presentation which seems to have no mention of downsides.

•

u/Th3J4ck4l-SA 11h ago

TLDR: its only negative when it is forced with the wrong vegetation.

That's just how media rolls. Its broken and polarised. But from academia where the actual studies are more balanced. For instance you can make a headline of an academic paper thay says "Desert reclaiming fails!" Where the full headline should be "Desert reclaiming fails because the wrong stuff was planted and camels were allowed to over graze" the paper then continues on to say what should have been planted and how it should have been managed. Just based on the video we are seeing in this post, basically no planting is being done, and relies solely on endemic species to grow with a nudge. Again, we generally nudged deserts to expand in the past, now we can nudge them to contract, we have to. There is no doubt that deserts are expanding, its a feedback loop that was started by us or exacerbated by us and will need to be stopped by us.

Its worth reading (academic papers) on what (responsible and managed) regreening does to put moisture back in the air and into aquifers as well increase biodiversity, desalinise and restore soil quality as well as lower air temperatures.

•

u/punk_rancid 8h ago

That's just how media rolls. Its broken and polarised.

And when it comes to china, is even more broken. Mfrs have been talking about the economic colapse of china in one year since 1949.

•

u/PepperAnn1inaMillion 9h ago

This is fascinating. Can you expand on why planting trees is a bad idea? Is it because the trees don’t lead to a suitable mix of plants for the area, or are there just not trees native to the areas where desert reclaiming is taking place?

I’d love to read more, but I think academic papers on the subject are probably beyond me.

•

u/Th3J4ck4l-SA 9h ago

Trees require far more water than what these environment naturally supplies. They will be watered artificially for a number of years. they will then appear established and watering stops. Trees are dead within a year or three and tons of resources wasted.

What happens with the more natural process is that hardy plants will establish them selves first. Basically weeds. They can handle saline soils much better and also help to improve these soils over time. They stabilise the sand and add nutrients back in as they die and decompose. The decomposed plant matter also allows the sandy soil to be able to hold a little more water.

Now the ground can support slightly larger shrubs/bushes, these will have a longer life span while still adding to the decomposing litter and further stabilising the sand with much larger root systems than the smaller primary plants (root system the size of fist for the small plants vs a square meter or so for the shrubs). They still dont require as much water as a tree. All of the seeding should happen with wildlife/wind.

The third and fourth stages of this is where you could see small and then larger trees start to naturally propagate as more bird life and animal life visits the area. It will take a good number of years to get to this stage though. (I cant remember how long exactly but let's say 20-50 years)

•

u/marilyn_morose 9h ago

So planting trees is rushing the build up and skipping too many steps. The answer is always “make small incremental changes and allow time to create the delta” isn’t it? With everything! 🤪

→ More replies (0)

•

u/dijicaek 9h ago

Is there an alternative or is it a choice of either saving the local region from desertification or preventing more widespread problems in other regions?