wolfyvegan

This article was (from what I understood) mostly referring to old heirloom crops that are no longer widely grown because they've been superseded by newer commercial cultivars. I remember hearing that in the early 1900s, there were something like 53 potato cultivars available to buy in grocery stores in the USA, but by the end of the century, there were only 4. That probably applies to other crops as well. Another example of capitalism reducing biodiversity, I guess.

I think that the point of the article is that keeping a large seed collection in storage is a risk; if the freezer fails, all of those seeds are lost forever. Even if the seeds are preserved indefinitely, after a few centuries of climate change, they may not be able to survive in the same region where they were collected, whereas by growing them out generation after generation, they are allowed to adapt to changing conditions and maintain a different sort of viability.

It would seem that keeping some seeds preserved in cold storage while also growing some of the same lineage in as many locations as possible would be the most effective means of keeping the genetics alive.

Someone has to be the first.

The article is definitely lacking details about the Moche and Chimu cultures. The coast of Peru has a history of severe droughts and floods and landslides and earthquakes, yet these people had advanced irrigation systems and managed to live in such an environment for centuries. From what I understand, it's the communal management and temporary nature of the irrigation infrastructure that differs from modern methods, but the how of managing it and moving it over time is left out. If anyone knows more, perhaps they can comment here.

Doesn't need to be a desert. Anywhere that has a dry season with lower humidity should work regardless of total annual precipitation.

And borax, to keep the termites from eating it.

One more reason to move to the jungle.

Just be to sure to check for rotten spots in an old wooden barrel before setting it up! Old wood + constant moisture = fungal rot.

Hello and thank you for your thoughtful comment. In general, I agree. I was not insinuating that Dipteryx oleifera trees (or plants in general) are only valuable as a source of food. They provide a myriad of ecosystem services, and all life in the forest is connected and interdependent. I simply meant that while some fruit-bearing plants are widely planted outside of their native range for food (durians, mangos, peaches, and probably most things that we both eat), this particular tree is probably not worth planting for its fruit alone (especially considering its size), and therefore it doesn't make sense to grow it outside of its native range as one might do with some other fruit trees. Within its native range, it could be worth planting for the sake of restoring the forest, in which case eating the fruit would be a bonus.

Of course, no animal is food.

It's more beautiful than delicious, honestly. The fruit doesn't have a very strong flavour, and the spines and seeds make it difficult to eat many of them out of hand, BUT blended with other things, it can be quite nice.

Is "spikes" a euphemism for durian?

Do you have plum blight in your area? Something to be aware of if planting native Prunus species. If you don't have problems with fungus there, then I definitely recommend Prunus americana.

I also second the suggestion of Diospyros virginiana. I've heard praise of the 'Meader' cultivar in particular.

Are you familiar with Amelanchier laevis? It should be native to Ohio.