This paper reviews the concept of adaptation of human communities to global changes, especially climate change, in the context of adaptive capacity and vulnerability. It focuses on scholarship that contributes to practical implementation of adaptations at the community scale. In numerous social science fields, adaptations are considered as responses to risks associated with the interaction of environmental hazards and human vulnerability or adaptive capacity. In the climate change field, adaptation analyses have been undertaken for several distinct purposes. Impact assessments assume adaptations to estimate damages to longer term climate scenarios with and without adjustments. Evaluations of specified adaptation options aim to identify preferred measures. Vulnerability indices seek to provide relative vulnerability scores for countries, regions or communities. The main purpose of participatory vulnerability assessments is to identify adaptation strategies that are feasible and practical in communities. The distinctive features of adaptation analyses with this purpose are outlined, and common elements of this approach are described. Practical adaptation initiatives tend to focus on risks that are already problematic, climate is considered together with other environmental and social stresses, and adaptations are mostly integrated or mainstreamed into other resource management, disaster preparedness and sustainable development programs. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

/pdf/adaptation-adaptive-capacity-and-vulnerability-3txg5bpzf9.pdf

Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability

Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation

This will seem a heretical claim to many environmentalists, since the idea of wilderness has for decades been a fundamental tenet-indeed, a passion-of the environmental movement, especially in the United States. For many Americans wilderness stands as the last remaining place where civilization, that all too human disease, has not fully infected the earth. It is an island in the polluted sea of urban-industrial modernity, the one place we can turn for escape from our own too-muchness. Seen in this way, wilderness presents itself as the best antidote to our human selves, a refuge we must somehow recover if we hope to save the planet. As Henry David Thoreau once famously declared, "In Wildness is the preservation of the World."' But is it? The more one knows of its peculiar history, the more one realizes that wilderness is not quite what it seems. Far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity, it is quite profoundly a human creation-indeed, the creation of very particular human cultures at very particular moments in human history. It is not a pristine sanctuary where the last remnant of an untouched, endangered, but still transcendent nature can for at least a little while longer be encountered without the contaminating taint of civilization. Instead, it is a product of that civilization, and could hardly be contaminated by the very stuff of which it is made. Wilderness hides its unnaturalness behind a mask that is all the more beguiling because it seems so natural. As we gaze into the mirror it holds up for us, we too easily imagine that what we behold is Nature when in fact we see the reflection of our own unexamined longings and desires. For this reason, we mistake ourselves when we

/pdf/the-trouble-with-wilderness-or-getting-back-to-the-wrong-4344fg4xox.pdf

The Trouble with Wilderness; Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature

Natural organic biomass burning creates black carbon which forms a considerable proportion of the soil’s organic carbon. Due to black carbon’s aromatic structure it is recalcitrant and has the potential for long-term carbon sequestration in soil. Soils within the Amazon-basin contain numerous sites where the ‘dark earth of the Indians’ (Terra preta de Indio, or Amazonian Dark Earths (ADE)) exist and are composed of variable quantities of highly stable organic black carbon waste (‘biochar’). The apparent high agronomic fertility of these sites, relative to tropical soils in general, has attracted interest. Biochars can be produced by ‘baking’ organic matter under low oxygen (‘pyrolysis’). The quantities of key mineral elements within these biochars can be directly related to the levels of these components in the feedstock prior to burning. Their incorporation in soils influences soil structure, texture, porosity, particle size distribution and density. The molecular structure of biochars shows a high degree of chemical and microbial stability. A key physical feature of most biochars is their highly porous structure and large surface area. This structure can provide refugia for beneficial soil micro-organisms such as mycorrhizae and bacteria, and influences the binding of important nutritive cations and anions. This binding can enhance the availability of macro-nutrients such as N and P. Other biochar soil changes include alkalisation of soil pH and increases in electrical conductivity (EC) and cation exchange capacity (CEC). Ammonium leaching has been shown to be reduced, along with N2O soil emissions. There may also be reductions in soil mechanical impedance. Terra preta soils contain a higher number of ‘operational taxonomic units’ and have highly distinctive microbial communities relative to neighbouring soils. The potential importance of biochar soil incorporation on mycorrhizal fungi has also been noted with biochar providing a physical niche devoid of fungal grazers. Improvements in soil field capacity have been recorded upon biochar additions. Evidence shows that bioavailability and plant uptake of key nutrients increases in response to biochar application, particularly when in the presence of added nutrients. Depending on the quantity of biochar added to soil significant improvements in plant productivity have been achieved, but these reports derive predominantly from studies in the tropics. As yet there is limited critical analysis of possible agricultural impacts of biochar application in temperate regions, nor on the likelihood of utilising such soils as long-term sites for carbon sequestration. This review aims to determine the extent to which inferences of experience mostly from tropical regions could be extrapolated to temperate soils and to suggest areas requiring study.

Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review

Time is divided by geologists according to marked shifts in Earth's state. Recent global environmental changes suggest that Earth may have entered a new human-dominated geological epoch, the Anthropocene. Here we review the historical genesis of the idea and assess anthropogenic signatures in the geological record against the formal requirements for the recognition of a new epoch. The evidence suggests that of the various proposed dates two do appear to conform to the criteria to mark the beginning of the Anthropocene: 1610 and 1964. The formal establishment of an Anthropocene Epoch would mark a fundamental change in the relationship between humans and the Earth system.

https://bertaux.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/3-12-15-lewis-maslin-defining-the-anthropocene-nature14258.pdf

Defining the Anthropocene

The myth persists that in 1492 the Americas were a sparsely populated wilder- ness, "a world of barely perceptible human disturbance." There is substantial evidence, however, that the Native American landscape of the early sixteenth century was a humanized landscape almost everywhere. Populations were large. Forest composition had been modified, grasslands had been created, wild- life disrupted, and erosion was severe in places. Earthworks, roads, fields, and settle- ments were ubiquitous. With Indian depopu- lation in the wake of Old World disease, the environment recovered in many areas. A good argument can be made that the human pres- ence was less visible in 1750 than it was in 1492.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2563351.pdf

The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492

PART I. FIELDS AND ASSOCIATED FEATURES 1. Introduction: research on indigenous cultivation in the Americas 2. Classification of field types 3. Crops, tools, and soft technology PART II. AMAZONIAN CULTIVATION 4. A diversity of Habitats and field systems 5. Fields of the Mojo, Campa, Bora, Shipibo, and Karinya 6. Pre-European riverine cultivation 7. Pre-European forest cultivation PART III. ANDEAN IRRIGATION AND TERRACING 8. Irrigated fields 9. Terraced fields 10. Terrace and irrigation origins and abandonment in the Colca valley PART IV. RAISED AND DRAINED FIELDS 11. Lost systems of cultivation 12. The Mojos raised fields 13. The Titicaca raised fields 14. Ditched fields, drainage canals, and river canalization PART V. CONCLUSIONS 15. Implications of indigenous agricultural technology APPENDICES 1A Cultivated plants of South America 1B Roster of cultivated plants by species name

Cultivated Landscapes of Native Amazonia and the Andes

During the twentieth century, Amazonia was widely regarded as relatively pristine nature, little impacted by human history. This view remains popular despite mounting evidence of substantial human influence over millennial scales across the region. Here, we review the evidence of an anthropogenic Amazonia in response to claims of sparse populations across broad portions of the region. Amazonia was a major centre of crop domestication, with at least 83 native species containing populations domesticated to some degree. Plant domestication occurs in domesticated landscapes, including highly modified Amazonian dark earths (ADEs) associated with large settled populations and that may cover greater than 0.1% of the region. Populations and food production expanded rapidly within land management systems in the mid-Holocene, and complex societies expanded in resource-rich areas creating domesticated landscapes with profound impacts on local and regional ecology. ADE food production projections support estimates of at least eight million people in 1492. By this time, highly diverse regional systems had developed across Amazonia where subsistence resources were created with plant and landscape domestication, including earthworks. This review argues that the Amazonian anthrome was no less socio-culturally diverse or populous than other tropical forested areas of the world prior to European conquest.

/pdf/the-domestication-of-amazonia-before-european-conquest-427qlhz0yr.pdf

The domestication of Amazonia before European conquest.

Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas as high as 112 million in 1492, while others estimate the population to have been as low as eight million. In any case, the native population declined to less than five million by 1650. In this collection of essays, historians, anthropologists and historical demographers discuss the discrepancies in the population estimates and the evidence for the post-European decline. Woodrow Borah, Angel Rosenblat and William T. Sanders, among others, examine such topics as the Indian slave trade, disease, military action and the disruption of the social systems of the native peoples. Offering varying points of view, the contributions critically analyse major hemispheric and regional data and estimates for pre- and post-European contact.

/pdf/the-native-population-of-the-americas-in-1492-3dkpl43436.pdf

The Native Population of the Americas in 1492

In Amazonia, prehistoric settlement was especially concentrated along the major rivers. This has been explained by the superior soil and wildlife resources of the floodplain (varzea) compared to the interfluve uplands (terra firme). However, the floodplain is a high-risk habitat because of regular and periodic extreme flooding of even the highest terrain. A bluff model is proposed arguing that most settlement was not in the floodplain but rather on the valley-side bluff tops adjacent to active river channels. Subsistence was a multistrategy utilizing floodplain playa (beach) and levee soils and aquatic wildlife periodically in combination with more stable bluffedge gardens, agroforestry, and hunting. That permanent and semipermanent cultivation systems were established on the poor bluff soils is evidenced by archaeology, ethnohistory, paleoecology, and zones of anthropogenic soils (terra preta). However, bluff occupation was sporadic rather than continuous, with large settlements mostly located where main river channels impinged against bluffs. This pattern persisted with colonial missions, and it continues today.

William M. Denevan

Papers

The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492

Cultivated Landscapes of Native Amazonia and the Andes

The domestication of Amazonia before European conquest.

The Native Population of the Americas in 1492

A Bluff Model of Riverine Settlement in Prehistoric Amazonia