Soil carbon could be key to protecting global biodiversity and climate at same time

New research shows how soil carbon could be the key to protecting endangered species and reining in global emissions of greenhouse gases at the same time.

Worldwide, we’re spending less than a third of what it would take to protect global biodiversity and meet biodiversity targets adopted by the UN, according to a 2012 study.

Add to that the cost of meeting emissions reduction targets, which could be anywhere from several hundred billion to several trillion dollars, and it’s clear that any way we can do more with less is welcome indeed.

There is no doubt that carbon soil could help us meet emissions reductions targets. The total amount of carbon in soil is estimated to be far greater than in all vegetation around the world and the global atmosphere combined.

The authors of an article published last week in the journal Environmental Conservation argue that, in addition to helping the world reduce emissions, soil carbon can also help determine exactly where wildlife and natural habitat conservation funds would be most effectively deployed.

That’s because, despite what the authors describe as “shortcomings in available data,” natural habitats with greater soil carbon stocks were found to harbor large numbers of species, including many threatened species — far more than habitats with less soil carbon, on average.

The researchers looked at two well-studied tropical regions: the Virunga Landscape in Central Africa and the Federal District in Brazil. They found that 15 of 21 animal species of conservation concern in the Virunga, and nine of 10 in in the Federal District, rely on carbon-rich habitats, such as alluvial sites or wetlands.

DSC09042

The team also examined what data was available on 1,048 threatened species in 37 different tropical nations and found that 85 percent rely on wetlands or carbon-rich alluvial habitats “to a significant degree” — a tendency observed in plants, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and crustaceans, though not in birds.

“In total our results indicate that wetter, more carbon-rich, habitats harbour more species of conservation significance, than do drier less carbon-rich habitats,” the researchers write in Environmental Conservation.

“These carbon-rich habitats, and their biota, are also under greater threat from human activities, which further accentuates the conservation significance of these areas and their species.”

Current conservation efforts rarely take soil carbon into account in a systematic way, said Norwegian University of Life Sciences’ Dr. Douglas Sheil, a lead author of the article.

“Few conservation programs take soil carbon into account in a meaningful manner at present, though there is increasing attention to peat forests and mangrove that is in part due to their soil carbon,” Sheil told Mongabay.

On its surface, the concept is a fairly simple one. “By protecting natural habitats we are ensuring less carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere, thus reducing climate change and ocean acidification,” Sheil said.

“By having more funds we can protect larger areas and might perhaps protect them better. This would be particularly valuable for the many species that make good use of lowland and wetland habitats. In the paper we point out that this appears to be the majority of endangered species.”

As an example, Sheil said that if you wanted to extend mountain gorilla habitat, it would make sense to include valley bottom areas, as these are the areas that the animals prefer. This land would likely have a higher market price, since it would also be good for agriculture and thus be targeted for conversion.

But that also means it has greater carbon value, so protecting the gorilla habitat also helps cut emissions from human activities. And thanks to the inclusion of the UN’s REDD+ program in the Paris climate agreement as a standalone article, there is likely to be a whole lot more money available for such efforts that protect carbon-rich natural habitats in the near future.

“The key benefit would be that such a project could attract more carbon payments, which would ultimately allow more habitat to be protected,” Sheil said. “It would perhaps be a part of a larger scale landscape approach that includes the preservation of natural areas, along with land-uses that have minimal carbon costs.”

But of course, there are a lot of devils in the details. For one thing, it’s unknown how much funding will ultimately be available to support these types of initiatives.

Then there’s the lack of data. “Available information is inadequate to confidently assess all the key relationships,” Sheil and team wrote.

Precise data is key because “The correlation between soil carbon and conservation values is a general pattern, a scatter of points rather than a tight linear relationship,” they added. “There will be sites with high carbon soils and low biodiversity values, and sites with low carbon soils and high conservation values.”

“Another uncertainty is the depth of soil to consider,” Sheil said. “The deeper we go the more carbon we find, but current accounting tends to only consider the top 30 centimeters — though we know that draining peat can impact soil carbon at much greater depths.”

Sheil and team also caution that it’s important carbon finance be used in addition to conventional conservation funding, as opposed to becoming a substitute for those funds.

“Threatened species outside carbon-rich sites (e.g. many birds) also require conservation and resources will still be needed to address hunting, over-harvesting, invasive species and other biodiversity threats,” they wrote.

CITATION

Houghton, R. A. (2007). Balancing the global carbon budget. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 35: 313–347. doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.14005
McCarthy, D. P., Donald, P. F., Scharlemann, J. P., Buchanan, G. M., Balmford, A., Green, J. M., Bennun, L. A., Burgess, N. D., Fishpool, L. D. & Garnett, S. T. (2012). Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338 (6109): 946–949. doi:10.1126/science.1229803
Sheil, D., Ladd, B., Silva, L.C.R., Laffan, S.W., & Van Heist, M. (2016). How are soil carbon and tropical biodiversity related? Environmental Conservation. doi:10.1017/S0376892916000011

Article published by Mike Gaworecki on February 24, 2016.

Source: http://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/soil-carbon-could-be-key-to-protecting-global-biodiversity-and-climate-at-same-time/

A sprinkle of compost helps rangeland lock up carbon

920x680

A compost experiment that began seven years ago on a Marin County ranch has uncovered a disarmingly simple and benign way to remove carbon dioxide from the air, holding the potential to turn the vast rangeland of California and the world into a weapon against climate change.

The concept grew out of a unique Bay Area alignment of a biotech fortune, a world-class research institution and progressive-minded Marin ranchers. It has captured the attention of the White House, the Brown administration, the city of San Francisco, officials in Brazil and China, and even House Republicans, who may not believe in climate change but like the idea that “carbon farming” could mean profits for ranchers.
Experiments on grazing lands in Marin County and the Sierra foothills of Yuba County by UC Berkeley bio-geochemist Whendee Silver showed that a one-time dusting of compost substantially boosted the soil’s carbon storage. The effect has persisted over six years, and Silver believes the carbon will remain stored for at least several decades.

The experiments were instigated by John Wick and his wife, Peggy, heiress to the Amgen biotech fortune, on a 540-acre ranch they bought in Nicasio. What began as a search for an artist’s studio turned into a seven-year, $8 million journey through rangeland ecology that has produced results John Wick calls “the most exciting thing I can think of on the planet right now.”

Spreading scraps

The research showed that if compost from green waste — everything from household food scraps to dairy manure — were applied over just 5 percent of the state’s grazing lands, the soil could capture a year’s worth of greenhouse gas emissions from California’s farm and forestry industries.
The effect is cumulative, meaning the soil keeps absorbing carbon dioxide even after just one application of compost, the researchers found. In theory, Silver calculates, if compost made from the state’s green waste were applied to a quarter of the state’s rangeland, the soil could absorb three-quarters of California’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions.

“For a lot of people, this sounds a little fantastic,” Silver said. “There’s nothing magic about it.”
Soil is a major source of carbon, “and we’ve been bleeding it into the atmosphere for many, many years through plowing, overgrazing and poor agricultural practices,” Silver said. “So anything we can do to get some of that carbon back into the soil is going to be beneficial.”

Simple science

Unlike high-tech geo-engineering schemes to pull excess carbon dioxide from the air and stick it in old coal mines or under the ocean, applying compost is a simple way of creating what scientists call a positive feedback loop.

Plants pull carbon dioxide from the air through photosynthesis and transfer a portion of the carbon to the soil through their roots. Soil microorganisms then turn the carbon into a stable form commonly known as humus.
This not only sequesters the carbon but improves the soil’s fertility, boosting plant growth and capturing more carbon while also improving the soil’s ability to absorb and retain water.

Wick says that since he started spreading compost on his ranch, he’s seen an increase in native perennial plants and bird life, and “we now have green grass year round during a drought.”
“We stepped into a crashing system and we bumped it once and it corrected,” Wick said.

Chance discovery

The project began almost by accident. Peggy Wick, a children’s book illustrator and author, was looking for a larger studio, and the Nicasio ranch had a barn that fit the bill. The couple immediately removed the cattle, John Wick said, because “we were confident that they were destroying the environment.”
In short order, weeds and invasive plants began to take over. So the Wicks hired rangeland ecologist Jeff Creque, who suggested changing grazing patterns to mimic the migrations of wild herds of ruminants that co-evolved with grasslands. The results were promising, and they wanted to test Creque’s theory that the new grazing was increasing soil carbon.

They approached Silver. She told them, “I doubt it, and I doubt we could measure it,” John Wick said.
With the cooperation of other ranchers, Silver and the Wicks began soil tests on 35 plots in Marin and Sonoma counties. Initial surveys showed that old dairy ranches had higher soil carbon, but they knew that the greenhouse gases emitted from raw manure would negate any advantage.

So Silver suggested adding compost, a more stable form of carbon. She began scientific tests on plots in Nicasio and at a research site in the Sierra foothills. The results surprised her.

“We need to reduce our fossil fuel emissions — there’s just no way around that problem,” Silver said. “But this is one of the things that we can do that certainly can make a difference. It’s inexpensive, it’s low technology, it’s good land use, it solves multiple problems.”

Degraded lands

Grazing is the single largest land use on the planet, and most grazing lands are degraded, meaning they have lost carbon. That includes California’s coastal and Sierra foothills, where invasive plant species have displaced native perennials that have much deeper roots and store much more carbon.

The good news is that by returning carbon to the soil in a stable form such as compost, soils can be restored, said Rattan Lal, director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State University.
“Whether it’s eroded, whether it’s compacted, whether it’s salinized, nutrient depletion is a very big factor in cropland and grazing land,” Lal said. “And the more degraded the lands are, the more the need they have of putting carbon back in the soil.”

Lal considers it essential to restore carbon to the world’s soils, regardless of whether it combats climate change. “The other reasons are much more pressing,” he said. “Food security, water quality, biodiversity, other environmental issues are related to soil. And in addition to all that, it does also offset some of the carbon emitted by fossil fuel combustion.”

Daunting logistics

But the logistics of spreading compost over even a small fraction of California, much less all the rangeland of the world, are daunting. There is simply not enough compost being made for such a project. As low-tech as making and spreading compost is, it takes money.

Enter the city of San Francisco, which composts 700 tons of residential and commercial organic waste every day, the largest such operation in the world.

“I’ve been in the recycling business for 30-some years here in San Francisco, and this just was much more transformative than the various things we were trying to do to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere,” said Kevin Drew, zero-waste coordinator for San Francisco’s Department of Environment. “To turn around and start taking it out of the atmosphere was a really revolutionary idea, particularly when it was as simple as putting compost on rangeland.”

The city has begun working closely with the Marin Carbon Project, a nonprofit founded by the Wicks. The project is funded in part by the Rathmann Family Foundation, started by Peggy Wick’s father, George Rathmann, the late founder of Amgen Inc. and a leading figure in the biotech industry.

With ample financial resources, the project has stitched together a network of ranchers, government officials, scientists and nonprofits that aims to take the compost concept not just across California, but across the nation and the world.

“We have no illusions that this is something that is going to happen at a backyard scale,” said ecologist Creque. “This has to be a global ecosystem restoration effort.”

Cap and trade

Efforts are under way to incorporate soil carbon offsets in California’s cap-and-trade system, so ranchers could earn credits for spreading compost. The American Carbon Registry, an organization that certifies offsets, on Thursday approved one for compost additions to rangeland.

Many see a faster approach through the Natural Resources Conservation Agency, an arm of the U.S. Agriculture Department that was formed after the Dust Bowl of the 1930s to halt soil erosion. The agency is incorporating carbon planning into its voluntary national farm conservation protocols.
“All we’re doing now is the same thing we’ve been doing” since the Dust Bowl, said Adam Chambers, an air-quality scientist at the agency.

The department is building a carbon farming model that includes compost along with three dozen basic practices that help restore soil carbon, such as no-till farming and cover crops. Adding compost “builds up the water-holding capacity of the soils very quickly and jump-starts the system,” Chambers said. “You can change the system pretty quickly.”

In June, John Wick touted the benefits of spreading compost on rangeland at a House Natural Resources Subcommittee hearing chaired by Rep. Rob Bishop. The Utah Republican described such efforts as a “win-win” approach to the environment that could help ranchers.

On Oct. 8, the White House named the Marin Carbon Project in a report on how agriculture can improve climate resilience. Gov. Jerry Brown’s office is planning a site visit to the Wicks’ ranch. Talks are under way with officials in Brazil and China.

Guido Frosini, farm manager at True Grass Farms near Bodega Bay, already manages his livestock to mimic wild migratory herds on 1,200 acres. Working with the Marin Carbon Project, he plans to add compost to accessible areas.

“When you’re looking at spreading compost on 1,200 acres, there’s no way I can come up with the money to do that,” Frosini said. “But if we just start incrementally, doing it initially 10 to 15 acres at a time, it will pay off within a lifetime.”

Carolyn Lochhead is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: clochhead@sfchronicle.com

Warm temperatures and a wet landscape increase soil’s ability to store carbon, which in turn helps mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new University of Florida study covering 45 years of data.

Soil-stored carbon can slow the build-up of carbon-based gases in the atmosphere, a phenomenon believed to be a cause of global climate change. So it’s vital to preserve soil carbon, said Sabine Grunwald, a UF soil and water science professor who led the research.

“The conservation of the ‘black gold’ below our feet, which is not only a natural part of Florida’s soils but also helps to improve our climate and agricultural production, is a hidden treasure,” said Grunwald, a member of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences faculty. “Soils serve as a natural container to hold carbon that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases that accelerate global climate change.”

In addition to environmental stewardship, landowners can make money by storing carbon. Participants in the state’s Florida Stewardship Program are sitting on an estimated $300 million worth of carbon.

Because it’s so wet, Florida’s soil has historically stored more carbon than any state, except perhaps Alaska, which has not been studied extensively, Grunwald said.

With Florida’s rapid population growth in the past 45 years, from 5 million to about 18 million, land use has changed considerably. More urban areas have sprung up, while agricultural, rangeland and forests have declined, Grunwald said. That change has caused carbon-rich wetlands to increase 140 percent, while carbon-poor agricultural land decreased about 20 percent, according to the study.
Sabine Grunwald. Associate Professor, Ph.D.  Soil and Water Science.
In the first study of its kind, UF researchers reviewed data from 1,251 soil samples collected across Florida from 1965 to 1996. They also collected 1,080 new soil samples statewide in 2010. They studied carbon sequestration rates from 1965 to 2010.

Researchers studied land use, land cover and climate change to see how those factors affect the soil’s ability to store carbon. Organic carbon in soil includes dead plant and animal tissue and makes up most global soil carbon.

Land cover is what’s on the Earth’s surface, whether it’s dirt, pavement, water or trees, among other things. Land use means how people utilize public and private land, such as agriculture, forestry or conservation land.

Together, land use, land cover and climate change account for 46 percent of soil carbon sequestration, the study showed. Of that, land use and land cover account for 27 percent, while climate change account for 19 percent.

Researchers used temperature and rain to determine the effect of climate change. They found higher average annual temperatures correlated with higher soil carbon sequestration, specifically in crops, mesic upland forest, pineland and land converted from pine forests to urban use. Areas with higher average annual precipitation showed less sequestration in agricultural crops and pine forests.

Among land-use types, researchers also found sugarcane in the soils of the Everglades Agricultural area near Lake Okeechobee and wetlands stored the most soil carbon while crop, citrus and relatively dry upland forest sequestered the least.

Results of the study appear in the September issue of the journal Science of the Total Environment.

Historically, Florida soils stored the largest amount of soil organic carbon (SOC) among the conterminous U.S. states (2.26 Pg). This region experienced rapid land use/land cover (LULC) shifts and climate change in the past decades. The effects of these changes on SOC sequestration are unknown.

The objectives of this study were to 1) investigate the change in SOC stocks in Florida to determine if soils have acted as a net sink or net source for carbon (C) over the past four decades and 2) identify the concomitant effects of LULC, LULC change, and climate on the SOC change. A total of 1080 sites were sampled in the topsoil (0–20 cm) between 2008 and 2009 representing the current SOC stocks, 194 of which were selected to collocate with historical sites (n = 1251) from the Florida Soil Characterization Database (1965–1996) for direct comparison.

Results show that SOC stocks significantly differed among LULC classes – sugarcane and wetland contained the highest SOC, followed by improved pasture, urban, mesic upland forest, rangeland, and pineland while crop, citrus and xeric upland forest remained the lowest. The surface 20 cm soils acted as a net sink for C with the median SOC significantly increasing from 2.69 to 3.40 kg m− 2 over the past decades. The SOC sequestration rate was LULC dependent and controlled by climate factors interacting with LULC. Higher temperature tended to accelerate SOC accumulation, while higher precipitation reduced the SOC sequestration rate. Land use/land cover change observed over the past four decades also favored the C sequestration in soils due to the increase in the C-rich wetland area by ~ 140% and decrease in the C-poor agricultural area by ~ 20%. Soils are likely to provide a substantial soil C sink considering the climate and LULC projections for this region.

Interaction effects of climate and land use/land cover change on soil organic carbon sequestration by Xiong Xiong, Sabine Grunwald, D. Brenton Myers, C. Wade Ross, Willie G. Harris, Nicolas B. Comerford published in Science of The Total Environment Volume 493, 15 September 2014, Pages 974–982
Read the abstract and get the paper here.

News release issued by Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and University of Florida here.

The Earth’s soils store four times more carbon than the atmosphere and small changes in soil carbon storage can have a big effect on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. A new paper in the journal Nature Climate Change concludes that climate warming does not accelerate soil organic carbon decomposition or affect soil carbon storage, despite increases in ecosystem productivity.

Laupahoehoe stream in the fall

NewsImage_20800

The research, led by U.S. Forest Service Research Ecologist Dr. Christian Giardina, with the agency’s Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Pacific Southwest Research Station, with co-authors Drs. Creighton Litton and Susan Crow (University of Hawai`i at Manoa), and Dr. Greg Asner (Carnegie Institution for Science), shows that soil carbon storage was constant across a highly constrained 5 degrees Celsius gradient of mean annual temperature in tropical montane wet forest in Hawaii.

The scientists also showed an increase in productivity across the gradient, both above and belowground, and an increase in the decomposition rate of fresh litter and a decline in coarse woody debris with warming. From these results, they concluded that long-term warming in tropical montane forests will accelerate carbon cycling, but is unlikely to cause net losses of soil carbon.

“Given our findings, we expect that warming alone, that is in the absence of other changes such as drying or increased fire, will not accelerate the loss of carbon from mineral soils,” says Giardina. “This means that tropical soils will not become a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.”

The effects of warming on soil carbon storage are poorly quantified because it is difficult to assess how temperature change impacts processes below the soil surface. However, the temperature gradient used in this study provides an ideal study system for measuring ecosystem responses to warming over long periods of time. The scientists were careful to find a gradient of temperature change where potentially confounding factors were held constant, including vegetation composition, disturbance history, geology, and soil type and moisture. This allowed them to isolate the effects of changing temperature on ecosystem carbon storage and flux.

The scientists propose that where ecosystem carbon is unprotected, such as at the surface in plant debris, its decomposition and storage will respond strongly to warming. However, when carbon is protected in the soil, decomposer organisms have reduced access to that carbon and so decomposition or storage show little temperature sensitivity. And while climate warming will continue with the addition of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere due to human activities (fossil fuel combustion, land-use clearing), previous assumptions about a positive soil carbon cycling feedback to future warming may be incorrect.

While soil carbon storage and turnover was insensitive to warming, the decomposition of coarse wood and plant growth did increase, which means that the capacity of tropical ecosystems to retain carbon will depend on the balance of changes within each ecosystem.

To read the paper: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/46423

For Peat’s Sake

Unless you’ve been living in a hole in the ground for the last few years, you’ll know that using peat-based products in your garden is decimating peatlands throughout the UK and beyond.
Peatlands provide vital habitats for wildlife, store greenhouse gases and release thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. However, peat is used in compost and soil improvers because it’s light, retains moisture and stores nutrients. It’s also very cheap.
In an effort to raise awareness and encourage gardeners to choose peat-free alternatives, leading organic growing charity Garden Organic has launched its ‘I Don’t Dig Peat’ campaign, to put an end the 24 million wheelbarrows of peat which its experts estimate is being used unnecessarily by British gardeners each year.
Gardeners’ World presenter Alys Fowler, who is fronting the campaign, says: “Whether people think peat is the best option depends on if they’ve experimented with going peat-free.
“Increasingly, those who go peat-free and get hold of good quality compost find there’s no argument. I don’t use any peat-based compost and I see no difference. I grow fantastic vegetables.
“If you were trying to grow peat bog plants, there’s an argument that growing them in peat is sensible, but the amount of people growing peat bog plants is tiny. What’s happening is that a lot of people are using peat – up to 70% peat in some multi-purpose composts – for growing, say, tomatoes. But tomatoes don’t need peat to grow.”
Fowler uses her council’s green waste compost, called ‘Care compost’, sold at her local garden centre, along with peat-free multi-purposes from Carbon Gold, New Horizon and Vital Earth.
“If your council is making green waste, phone their refuse department which should be able to tell you where to buy it. It’s incredibly cheap,” she suggests.
Historically, peat-free composts have been criticised for being inferior for seed-sowing. A Which? Gardening report from the Consumers’ Association magazine noted earlier this year: “Our trial results show that peat-free composts still have a way to go to match the performance of peat for sowing seeds and growing on young plants – although the picture is rosier for container composts.”
However, some peat-based composts are just as inferior as their peat-free counterparts, says Ceri Thomas, editor of Which? Gardening.
“Gardeners shouldn’t assume that all compost is the same. Whether peat-free or peat-based, the quality of compost varies massively.
“Our trials found that it is possible to buy a good quality peat-free compost that performs as well as the best peat-based compost. But there are also a number of peat-based and peat-free composts that simply don’t match these high standards.”
In its latest trial, Which? Gardening recommends New Horizon Organic & Peat Free Growbag for sowing seeds. Germination rates for basil were on a par with its ‘Best Buy’ peat-based compost and the quality of the resulting seedlings was good.
New Horizon Organic & Peat Free multi-purpose compost (£5.99 for 60 litres) was a ‘Best Buy’ container compost for the second consecutive year, outperforming seven peat-based composts, including three specific container ones, to come joint top.
Fowler says: “This campaign is saying, think about it. There’s no need to dig up one part of the world to grow something in your back garden.
“Many people are coming into gardening through the ‘grow your own’ trend, because of health and environmental reasons. It would be sad to take a step backwards by using composting material which is not sustainable, when actually peat-free is getting better and better.”
If you want to go peat-free, avoid buying and using soil improvers as most of these contain peat, Garden Organic advises. Use products such as manure and leafmould to improve your soil instead.
Start making home compost and buy fewer bedding plants, switching to perennials which grow year after year, meaning you reduce the peat-grown plants you bring into the garden and the need to replant each year.
Search online for nurseries or mail order stores selling peat-free plants and support their peat-free initiatives.
Sometimes the good peat-free composts will be slightly pricier, Fowler concedes, but it’s a small price to pay for saving the earth.
“It’s worth paying a couple of pennies more to ensure a much more secure future for our wider environment, biodiversity and habitat,” she says.
For more information on the campaign and to pledge not to use peat, go to www.idontdigpeat.org.uk
Best of the bunch – Verbena bonariensis
Most verbenas are used as annuals, adding a burst of colour in pots and cascading over hanging baskets in the summer months.
However, some are more hardy including V. bonariensis, a tall, wiry plant which can reach 1.5-1.8m (5-6ft) and has an airy appearance because its long slim stems and small leaves allow you to look through it to the plants beyond.
With its deep lilac-purple flowers which can last until the autumn, its see-through qualities make it perfect for planting en masse in a sunny border, with hemerocallis, lavandula, achillea and Echinacea purpurea. It’s also a magnet to butterflies.
Like all verbenas, it needs to be grown in full sun in well-drained soil, with added sharp drainage. It can be cut down to within 30cm (12in) of the ground and will survive short periods of frost and snow in winter.
Good enough to eat – Runner bean problems
If your runner beans don’t have many flowers on them it may be you’ve applied too much fertiliser and/or water at the wrong time, which will result in plenty of healthy leaves but not many flowers. Cold and windy weather can also stop bees from pollinating the crop.
The right time to water beans is when they are flowering and when the pods are swelling. You don’t need to water the young plants profusely until flowering starts, because watering consistently throughout the plant’s life will just fuel stem and leaf growth, but little else.
The secret is to plant them in fertile soil that doesn’t dry out easily, preparing the ground beforehand by digging in plenty of well-rotted organic matter.
Once they are flowering, plants can be watered twice a week, directing the flow at the base of the plants. New research shows that applying water to the roots in the evening increases cropping and pod set.
If your leaves are showing small brown spots surrounded by a yellow ‘halo’, the plants may have the disease halo blight, which results in the pods developing water-soaked spots. Prevent the problem by never soaking the seeds before sowing and use a resistant variety such as ‘Red Rum’. Pick off infected leaves when you see them, or pull out and bin affected plants.
Three ways to… Keep containers happy in summer
1. Choose bigger containers as they don’t dry out as quickly as smaller ones.
2. Feed plants regularly with a high potash feed.
3. Deadhead regularly and water morning and night in dry spells. Never let pots dry out because it will be really difficult to re-wet them again.
What to do this week
Plant autumn-flowering bulbs such as amaryllis, nerines and autumn crocuses.
Feed long-flowering and late flowering border perennials.
Collect and sow or store ripe seeds before they fall.
Encourage clematis in flower to bloom again in late summer by applying a liquid feed.
Take advantage of good weather to patch and paint glasshouses and frames.
In hot weather, shade newly planted crops such as brassicas from the sun until they are established.
Where roots are exposed due to watering, apply a top dressing of compost to tomatoes.
Summer-prune wall-trained plums and cherries, with the exception of Morello, by shortening back side-shoots by a third.
Continue to water containers and hanging baskets daily.
Trim and reshape hedges.
Top up the water in ponds and aerate it if you see fish gasping for oxygen in hot weather.
Harvest fruit, vegetables and herbs while they are in prime condition. Freeze, store or give away produce if you can’t use it immediately.
Plant out seedlings and rooted cuttings.

www.shropshirestar.com

Answer to climate change might lie in the soil

When it comes to climate change, one of the answers could lie in the soil, according to a groundbreaking North East study.

An investigation into the amount of carbon locked into the soil of the National Trust’s Wallington estate in Northumberland is providing climate change experts with new information about how agricultural land could be managed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve the ability of green spaces to capture soil carbon.
The trust sponsored a three-year study by Durham University into the levels of carbon contained within the different parts of Wallington estate, including its historical parkland, tenant farms and woodland.
The 13,500-acre estate was chosen because of its varied range of land uses.
More than 700 soil samples from across the estate were analysed to produce detailed data on the amount of carbon in the soil.
The results have given scientists the most accurate picture yet of soil carbon levels and how they are affected by different management and land uses.
The study has revealed that an estimated 1,265,474 tonnes of carbon – equivalent to the annual CO² emissions from the combined populations of Newcastle and Gateshead – are contained in the soils of Wallington.
Over the past 150 years, it is believed that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased by 30%.
Soils contain around 75% of the carbon on land – three times the amount stored in living plants and animals.
The amount and length of time carbon is stored is determined by how land is managed and it is hoped that the Northumberland project will help land managers and farmers to understand and protect soil carbon and to improve their skills as soil carbon stewards. The evidence gathered at Wallington has identified agricultural practices which can enhance carbon storage and will help avoid those that are most likely to lead to losses in carbon.

www.journallive.co.uk

Turning charcoal into Carbon Gold

A chocolate maker and music promoter aim to create a £1bn biochar industry, in a controversial effort to fight climate change. In a patch of woodland on the outskirts of Hastings, on the English south coast, a group of men huddle around a brick laboratory as smoke curls from its two chimneys. The men are trying, with some chemical trickery, to bring a lucrative piece of South America to Sussex, to spark what they believe could be a £1bn industry in Britain. The business is controversial. Some maintain it should be outlawed, and others say that only full-scale legalisation would control the risks. Until the fuss dies down, the men have decided to bury the powder they make in a nearby field. Craig Sams, a millionaire chocolate maker, and Dan Morrell, a former music promoter and entrepreneur, are producing charcoal, and their aim is to get rich by selling it to tackle global warming.

www.guardian.co.uk