Can you make rain with permaculture?

One year later and I'm coming back to the topic. The drought is severe and so are the fires. I know now a lot more about aborigines managing the land with fire and sadly geoengineering. I hope really that we can do something with permaculture against this onslought!

Mick Fisch wrote:On a small scale, you can't make it rain with permaculture.

What about one of those water generators from air? - apparently they use some small condenser and are used in areas with not much water. Not sure how much it would be useful though.
Search for "atmospheric water generator"

There is a lot of research as well
on alternative grazing techniques which build soil, improve pastures & improve water cycles.
https://regenerationinternational.org/why-regenerative-agriculture/

my favorite picture

In addition to the above, now there are studies affirming that huge mature wild forests also influence the pattern of winds, bringing moist air from the seas into the continental areas. A phenomenon called 'biotic pump' by the researchers.

https://www.science.org/content/article/controversial-russian-theory-claims-forests-don-t-just-make-rain-they-make-wind

Luke Bryan wrote:

Mick Fisch wrote:On a small scale, you can't make it rain with permaculture.

What about one of those water generators from air? - apparently they use some small condenser and are used in areas with not much water. Not sure how much it would be useful though.
Search for "atmospheric water generator"

Luke, you are right! Water can be made from the air though it is not rain.  This technique works and these threads will explain:

https://permies.com/t/airwell

https://permies.com/t/35795/AIR-WELLS-information

There are a lot of techniques that can be implemented:

https://permies.com/t/138768/Water-Plants-Trees-Drought-Conditions

https://permies.com/t/58559/Big-Fat-Thread-Dryland-Farming

Building up the soil will help plants not need as much water:

https://permies.com/t/63914/Soil

Dr. Bryant Redhawk's Soil Series:

https://permies.com/wiki/redhawk-soil

"Can you make rain with permaculture" is this topic:

I say yes you can and it is very easy:

Stop thinking the tree I would like to plant will not make a change against the expanding drought

Start thinking MY tree I just planted is the tripping point from drought to rain

and if there is not difference plant one more, persuade your neighbor by gifting him/her a tree that will be the tripping point and let him/her continue to do this until all see the first cloud since many years...

actually so simple, isn't it?

Hence the answer is:  "Yes you can make rain with permaculture"

This phenomenon puzzled scientists. Now one team of researchers in the US believe they have the answer: the trees make their own rain. Transpiration is a well-known part of photosynthesis, where moisture is drawn up by plant roots, gathers on leaves and then evaporates into the atmosphere.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/how-trees-in-the-amazon-make-their-own-rain/

Does anyone know if the Chinese Loess plateau afforestation created any increase in rainfall? I couldn't find anything with google.

Angelika Maier wrote:We have this terrible drought right now and sheep are dying of starvation. I think they are so desperate that they damage the paddock beyond repair, digging out the roots. Farms are pretty big here but there is only sheep paddock and very little vegetation. Farmers don't even have gardens or some chooks or an orchard. I wonder apart from the better holding of water on properties could you actually make rain by planting more trees? Farmers complain a lot and it is probably very hard for them, but they do not change the practices.

Planting trees in quantities large enough to make a difference will require willpower at the scale of the nation. You do not indicate how much yearly precipitation you get, just that you are in Australia zone 10, which is pretty darn tropical. (I'm in zone 4b, Central WI.)
So armed with that, I looked it up. There are regional differences, of course "Coastal areas of Queensland, Northern Territory, and Western Australia often experience upwards of 1,500–2,000 mm, with some areas exceeding 3,000 mm (120 inches)."
By comparison, I get and average of 31-32" per year.
So it appears to me that you are not so much low on annual precipitation, but you appear to have a very wet and a very dry season.
Your solution might reside in holding on to the water that you do get. Building underground cisterns like my great grandma had under her house might be your salvation. It would at least allow you to have ample water for you and your animals, maybe even a nice garden?
In the south of France, a whole village would build a cistern for the town and carefully meter that out.
It is not perfect but it's better than having starving sheep
I remember looking up the number of gallons of water you can collect from a regular sized roof. I almost fell off my chair!
"One inch of rain on a 1,000-square-foot roof produces approximately 600 to 623 gallons of water.
and that's just one inch of rain! A cistern can be made of a septic tank or several that are joined. A normal septic tank is about 1,000 to 1,500 gallons so with barely one inch of rain collected from a roof, you are already more than half way up a septic tank full.
The Romans would build their house with a central patio and instead of having the rooves shedding water away, they would have it collected in the middle and down to a large cistern that was mostly covered to prevent bugs and other critters. But, you know, the Romans were really pretty good with that kind of construction!
You did not indicate what sort of soil you have and if it would pay to excavate swells and berms, but if you have more clay, that might help too.

Skyler Weber wrote:Does anyone know if the Chinese Loess plateau afforestation created any increase in rainfall?

Yes, it did:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168192325002436

"The Grain for Green Project in the Chinese Loess Plateau (CLP) has greatly increased vegetation cover and altered land use patterns... On average, 21 % of the Evaporation/Transpiration moisture contributed to 14 % of local precipitation. The remaining ET moisture contributed unevenly to downwind precipitation of different regions: 38 % of ET for rest of China, 17 % for other countries, and 24 % for the ocean. The increased ET over the past three decades has greatly contributed to the increases in local precipitation."

Mushrooms increase rainfall, too:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4624964/,
https://www.chipcopreserve.com/post/how-mushrooms-make-it-rain-the-surprising-science-of-fungal-forecasting

"Unlike dust or pollution, fungal spores are particularly effective at attracting water. Their surfaces are hygroscopic, meaning they love water, and they can absorb moisture even in relatively dry conditions. Once in the atmosphere, spores help jumpstart the formation of clouds by providing a platform for water droplets to gather. When fungal spores are released en masse, especially after a rain, they prime the atmosphere to welcome the next rain event. In other words, mushrooms don’t just thrive in wet environments; they help create them."

So, it makes sense to improve the soil by planting trees and providing conditions that encourage biodiversity.  More trees and understory plants lead to more fungi. Trees (via evaporation & transpiration) and fungi (vis spore formation) both lead to more rain, locally and farther afield.

Box elder trees aka Manitoba maple (I think) are ice nucleating bacteria habitat.  Lots of species of plants have been tested, and so far box elders - Acer negundo are the best.

So many nucleating particles named in this thread!  Thank you all.

This is finally a phenomenon which highlights that earth and climate are community property and we all make a difference.  The box elders I am planting are unlikely to impact rainfall on my 6 acres, nor the mushroom spores if I can turn my brittle environment into mushroom growing.  But enhancing likelihood of rain is worth while because it will make it rain somewhere!

As far as I know, there is no planet B, and if there were, I haven’t heard
talk about allowing people passionate about maintaining some semblance of pristine conditions on earth to have some place untrammeled by more mainstream values.

We rectify CO2 and pollution, but it’s for everyone, or no one.  There’s just one earth.

Thekla McDaniels wrote:Box elder trees aka Manitoba maple (I think) are ice nucleating bacteria habitat.  Lots of species of plants have been tested, and so far box elders - Acer negundo are the best.

You got the naming right.  In an appropriate environment for it, the tree is almost weedy.  While the wood is not highly valuable for most things (burning, carving, building, etc), it does coppice well.  I understand seeds are edible and, around here at least, if you don't eat them, you may wind up with a forest.

And I think it’s fast growing… which in my mind equals capturing CO2 and sequestering carbon while enriching soil!

I have also heard you can make “maple” sugar, same genus after all.

Yes, Manitoba maples can be tapped - St. Pierre Jolys Museum holds a sugaring off festival each spring.  The community taps over 200 maples and is planting more around the town.  They sell out of syrup each year...I've never managed to get any.

That said, to get enough sap, you need to have enough mature trees to be able to tap to boil down for syrup.  Planting trees for this purpose may very well prove to be an intergenerational plan.

Derek Thille wrote:Yes, Manitoba maples can be tapped - St. Pierre Jolys Museum holds a sugaring off festival each spring.  The community taps over 200 maples and is planting more around the town.  They sell out of syrup each year...I've never managed to get any.

That said, to get enough sap, you need to have enough mature trees to be able to tap to boil down for syrup.  Planting trees for this purpose may very well prove to be an intergenerational plan.

Intergenerational, indeed, but we are patient, or we would not be permaculturists! (Haha)
Maple Species Ranked by Sap Brix and Syrup Yield Efficiency:
Sugar Maple & Black Maple
Average Sap Brix: 2.0% – 2.5%+
Sap-to-Syrup Ratio: ~40:1 (takes ~40 gallons of sap to make 1 gallon of syrup)
Red Maple & Silver Maple
Average Sap Brix: 1.0% – 2.0%
Sap-to-Syrup Ratio: ~50:1 (takes ~50 gallons of sap to make 1 gallon of syrup)
Boxelder (Manitoba Maple)
Average Sap Brix: ~1.0%
Sap-to-Syrup Ratio: ~60:1 or higher (takes 60+ gallons of sap for 1 gallon of syrup)
They consider "tappable" a maple that, at breast height is 10-12" in diameter. That takes time, and it takes longer for the sweeter maples  (30-40 years), than for the red or silver (25-30 years) or the Manitoba Maple (15-20 Years)
I grow a few sugar maples, but it's more for the fall foliage than the syrup. I figure, some day, I'll be able to tap a few, just for our own. (Another interesting yield for all maples is leaves, in case you want to make leaf mold)

Norway maple and Autumn Blaze maple yield good, usable syrup, while Japanese maple produces very little volume and can have an unusual, savory flavor.
You can make delicious syrup from several non-maple trees. Popular options include walnut, birch, sycamore, hickory, and even elm or linden trees, each yielding sap with a unique flavor profile.

Beyond this, you need to figure out if the trees you are considering can grow *well* in your zone and your soil.
You will also need lots of fuel to evaporate all that sap!

FWIW I've been experiment with "atmospheric water harvesting" -- passing the air over temperature zones below the dew point.  A tiny system designed as a room dehumidifier, placed outside, yields 30 to 120g of water per day.  This system uses AC power and Peltier cooling for condensation, but other techniques could be used to get the temperature down, like passing the outside air through underground, naturally cooled piping.  Still taking "baby steps" here... if anyone wants to know more, I'd be happy to discuss, including listening!

I appreciate that there has been a lot of nuance in this thread about the fact that trees are not always beneficial. They are when it's a good species fit for the climate and the biome, and plants in general transpire moisture, which modifies local climate. A few rambling thoughts about this below.

I really think the idea that a dry landscape is automatically bad or dead is pretty backwards, kind of old fashioned thinking that has really been shown to be wrong in many ways. Healthy grasslands are plains are appropriately adapted to their regional climate, and I think it's a good strategy if any trees and shrubs and herbs selected for planting in that environment are just well adapted to the climatic conditions in those areas (so, we may not want to plant those desperately thirsty almonds in a naturally dry biome).

Fun story: I used to live in Nebraska, the proud home of Arbor Day, where Charles Bessey and others (with Teddy Roosevelt's enthusiastic support!) researched and experimented with planting dense stands of (poorly adapted and introduced) tree species in national forest land in the Great Plains, in regions where the soil is actually loose loess and the climate is overall dry year-round. They did this because they were convinced that the plains were a sickly desert with no life (and so were deserts!). But the stands they planted in the middle of the state are now a sickly, sad timber reserve, too densely planted for even most recreational use. And after growing those stands for a century, they did not, in fact, succeed in changing the regional climate in any way, even when the stands were planted across very large plots, and they never produced a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem. I've heard that most of the trees grew up so unhealthy in that environment that they are actually infertile. Instead, the main thing they accomplished was to create a massive fire hazard that has to be constantly monitored, at ongoing expense, by the U.S. forest service.

The idea that there is something wrong with having native grasslands, that they are sad and dead, seems to have persisted in the popular imagination, despite the fact that those biomes actually support diverse and healthy ecosystems in the wild. Those environments are simply not forested, like, say, the wetter eastern U.S., except sometimes in patches located right near bodies of water. And those deserts and grasslands are not sad: they are vibrant and beautiful.

This is not to say that permaculture efforts to improve water retention and plant carefully selected woodland garden plants in these climates are misguided. I think you can support and improve soil quality and plant managed, innovative, healthy woodlands in these climatic environments using permie principles. But I do think it's important to be thoughtful about the species you plant when making those designs, and to recognize that retaining the limited annual rainfall through better design and planning is not the same as changing regional climate. While development, overgrazing, monoculture commercial farming with pesticide use, and all the related damage associated with those practices can have very localized climatic effects, and it is good to counteract those damaging impacts, that's likewise not quite the same thing as just regionally being in a drier climate...and I would argue that maybe it should not be considered the same thing.

Maybe I'm way off, but I guess that I think of permaculture as working together with and leveraging natural patterns (including climate), instead of trying to 'fix' them!

Sid Smith wrote:

I really think the idea that a dry landscape is automatically bad or dead is pretty backwards, kind of old fashioned thinking that has really been shown to be wrong in many ways. Healthy grasslands are plains are appropriately adapted to their regional climate...

I have read some studies that natural grasslands, managed by migrating herbivores, can sequester huge amounts of carbon in the soil, and this system was responsible for building some of the best soil in North America (which unfortunately, some humans are busy destroying with poor farming techniques.)

And wrote:

This is not to say that permaculture efforts to improve water retention and plant carefully selected woodland garden plants in these climates are misguided.

There is a principle that permaculture can be used to heal damaged land. As you say, sometimes what looks like "damaged land" is in fact an ecosystem that is part of nature. Knowing where that line is can be difficult. Humans have been impacting the environment in multitudes of ways for many centuries, so even knowing what the environment would have looked like without human interference, is extremely difficult.

I recently read a book about invasive species spread by humans. It described how archeologists in Britain are able to compare different interglacial periods and see what plants were able to reestablish in Britain in the warmer periods, and that differed from period to period, and in some cases,  appeared to have human influence, as well as animal/birds/wind etc.

Food for thought ~
Dew capture might be possible, it is surprising how much dew capture happens in drylands. Seems rather invisible, however stone structures or gravel based on top of soil can harvest dew in the night. Any air moisture will get trapped the rocks and as they cool they collect water on the bottom side that is hidden from the open air. If one can incorporate the dew capture materials with your swales or rain capture pattern you get better benefit-as when it does rain the dew capture structure will hold moisture longer by the same shading effect adding more air moisture right there-to be re-captured in the night.

Hypothetically, on a larger scale, if there was a way to arrange dew capture features continuously just below peaks and ridges (that are now barren) those ridges and peaks could be replanted with the right species(perhaps a native tree or shrub combo), these are selected because they also harvest and enhance dew capture, if this is done at scale it might actually increase localized rain potential and for every storm event that passes. The system will harvest dew from the air even if only traces of rain occur.

If situated in a valley and the wind blows generally sideways across the valley bottom, one could add contours shaped exactly against the predominant wind (like a series of long loess dunes) Snow or rain capture fencing is added to the cornice side of each ridge, effectively scraping the wind and creating a small pressure drop on those ridges. If in snow country, the fencing really does it's thing! Add dew capture features below the wind scraping fences and native dew enhancing tree/shrubs near the top edge of the ridge.

On a an even larger scale, really really big! if the above methods worked... Then perhaps an enormous contour system of rain capture lakes/ponds is installed generally at the toe of the slope around an entire valley.

Very heavy lifting for the bigger stuff.

Interesting thoughts.

And coincidentally, I was just thinking about capturing snow in my pasture.  

My neighbors mowed their pasture.  It’s beautiful green velvet.  I will enjoy it all winter.  

I leave mine ragged.  We get a lot of wind.  As the wind blows across the fields, it takes snow along.  I believe that the rough vegetation slows the wind, traps snow and provides habitat for insects’ egg cases and what ever else.  Probably insulates the ground some too.

I have high hopes for lots of snow this year and was wondering about the cost of a roll of snow fence.

I could just put it out in the middle of my pasture.  A straight line, perpendicular to prevalent winds.

I think it might make a big enough difference to be visible in the vegetation.  Especially after several years.

Ranchers sometimes burn limb wood to char it, seal it up, then use it for cattle fencing, I suppose one could do the same for snow fencing. If it is dry in the warm season the fence could end up a fire hazard too. Blown in grass can drift, get stuck in the fence and then get sparked by lightning. In places where fire is a problem a roll up fence seems like a pretty good idea.

Good idea.  Wish I had access to limbs!  Posts  might cost more than a roll of snow fence, but thinking about it, I do have messed up old wooden posts around.  I might have done fungal pile with them, but didn’t yet.

I could drill a row of post holes and set them in.  They would disrupt the gale. And harvest the snow flakes ,