It has been over two months since the last posting, a function of my work schedule and my impasse in this thread, but the rumination has fermented new thoughts.
Not long ago, I came across an article written by Clark L. Erickson, in Expedition Magazine, Vol. 30, Issue 3, “Raised Field Agriculture in the Lake Titicaca Basin.”
What I “gleaned” from this article is the affects of impounded water on micro-environments. Climates studies and USDA Growth Zones clearly show the impacts of large water features on the weather patterns. Most notably, in the Great Lakes are the “warmer” growth zones along Lake Michigan, Erie and Ontario, and their capacity to grow fruit and wine grapes. Often they are one full growth zone warmer than just 50 miles inland.
According to Erickson, the Inca natives around the lake were able to grow maize and other “warm” weather plants at altitudes unthinkable, because the gardens were “surrounded” by water retention. Ponds are a heat retention vehicle and they absorbed and held the mountain solar energy as warm water, then radiated it at night where air temperatures were sub-freezing. This added frost protection and growing degree days to grow grain and vegetables at 12,000’ +, twice as high as thought.
So, here comes the connection: If every creek, east of the Mississippi had a beaver dam, and associated wetland every 200’ (Wet Place III); and if, according to Steve Granner, http://www.beaverdam.info/ there was 1.5 million+ beaver dams in Midwest (Wet Place IV), what was the affects of all the retained water:
On the micro-environment around each dam?
On the localized climate??
On the Great Lakes region as an eco-system???
Work permitting, more will come soon!
