NASA data has shown that plant growth increases in large areas where intensification of agriculture has occurred.
Mueller, of the University of Maryland in College Park (now at the Biodiversity and Climate Research Center in Frankfurt) teamed up with university and NASA colleagues to find out. Their new analysis shows that on a global scale, the presence of people corresponds to more plant productivity, or growth.
Specifically, populated areas that have undergone intensive land use showed increasing plant greenness and productivity during the study period from 1981 to 2010.
The researchers found that the magnitude of changes in plant growth over the 29-year study period was different depending on the size of nearby population. Near areas defined as dense settlements with about 500 people per square kilometer the vegetation index increased by 4.3 percent. That's less than near villages, where the vegetation index increased by almost 6 percent. "More intensive agriculture occurs in these rural areas", Tucker added.
In short, areas with a human footprint have seen plant productivity increase. In contrast, areas with a minimal human footprint rangelands and wildlands saw close to no change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 03 2014, @06:06PM
Seems to me there must be some built in "plant preference bias", when a field of cultivated and fertilized mono-cultured plants is labeled as "plant productivity, or growth" but the woodlands cut or prairie plowed asunder is somehow just listed merely "no change".
As long as you value change, you can pretty much write off "no change" as somehow less "productive".
Quite possibly the rangelands and wildlands are being as productive as they can be. Increasing (or merely changing) that production comes at a price, work, cultivation, fertilizers, irrigation, insect control. Nobody does that for rangelands and wildlands. Yet every year those lands manage to produce a "crop", maybe just not the right crop.
Also today, we are farming LESS land in North America than we were in the past. Contrary to the Malthusian theory, we have been steadily taking marginal lands OUT of production and returning them to forest and field. Its been going on since the 30s.
I wonder if these lands are simply written off as rangelands and wildlands, biasing their results.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday July 03 2014, @07:45PM
Wow, you mean that humans adding fertilizer and artificially bringing in additional water caused there to be more green plants, and fewer dead or dying plants? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Horse With Stripes on Thursday July 03 2014, @07:50PM
More people means more consumption and more waste too. Probably more than the 4.3% increase in "greenness".
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Thursday July 03 2014, @08:03PM
You should see the size of my wife's tomatoes!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday July 04 2014, @10:05AM
That sounds pretty weird in Portuguese. The Portuguese word for "tomatoes" is "tomates", which is also slang for "testicles".
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday July 04 2014, @01:57PM
Excuse me... I must now go throw up.
Spank you very much.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday July 04 2014, @02:12PM
You started it :-)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by TestablePredictions on Thursday July 03 2014, @08:04PM
I think another interesting angle to consider is: what effect does human settlement have on populations of local herbivores? If our presence is somewhat lowering those populations, it could be part of the explanation for increased plant populations / hardiness.
Could insecticide use be benefiting bystander vegetation? How spatially confined is the effect of lowering insect populations?
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday July 03 2014, @11:32PM
Insightful.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @10:08PM
both the title and the quote from TFA have the most awkward and confusing way of stating things - to the point of being rubbish.
areas of low population density saw more plant growth than areas of high population density. therefore, 'more people' != 'more plant growth'. really, all one can glean from this study is that 'humans kno agriculture' - which should be obvious to everyone that isn't a vegetable.
(Score: 1) by klondike0 on Friday July 04 2014, @03:09PM
...Vaclac Smil's"Harvesting the Biosphere"
Human settlement develops a denser pattern of life compared to natural bio systems. Published in 2013, get it while it's still relevant.