FOLLOWING NATURE’S DESIGN PRINCIPLES & SOLUTIONS
A CREATIVE PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTERS OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
BY
BRETT JACKSON
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN MOTLOCH
MUNCIE, INDIANA
MAY 2012
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
With gratitude, I thank my committee members, John Motloch, Martha Hunt, and Jarka
Popovicova; the department of landscape architecture, chaired by Jody Rosenblatt-Naderi, and
the Univeristy for the opportunity to both study and become a part of the profession of
landscape architecture.
To the committee members, your interest and dedication to both this creative project
and my personal success is genuinely appreciated. Through your commitment to my success,
you have instilled within me confidence in the ability of achieving great things. I sincerely thank
you all for your personal and professional interest in me. You all are truly inspirational.
To my family, thank you all for putting your faith in me. I hope to make you all proud
through the obtainment of my education and personal success. Without your continued
support, I could never have gotten this far.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE..............................................................................................................................................1
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................................................4
TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................5
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................................7
Chapter 1-----INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................9
Project Significance
Definition of Problem, Subproblems, & Hypothesis
Delimitations & Assumptions
Methodology
Chapter 2-----EXPLORATION OF TOPICS......................................................................................30
Definition of Terms
Landscape Simplification
Ecosystem Services
Non-renewable Inputs
Biomimicry
Cross-talk
Meta-population Theory
Ecological Structure
6 Chapter 3-----CASE STUDIES...............................................................................................................47
Findhorn Ecovillage, Scotland
Centre for Alternative Technologies, Wales
Chapter 4-----SITE INVENTORY........................................................................................................57
Site History
Existing Conditions
Maps
Chapter 5-----SITE ANALYSIS & PROGRAMMING......................................................................80
Analysis
Programming Goals & Objectives
Program
Chapter 6-----SITE DESIGN & DIAGRAMS..................................................................................112
Environmental Systems
Site Design
Site Development Pattern Guidelines
Design Diagrams
Site Graphics
Site Elements
Chapter 7-----CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................142
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................................146
7 APPENDICES
Figure 1: Findhorn Ecovillage Context Map……………………………………………………………………………………………….58 Figure 2: Findhorn Ecovillage Map……………………………………………………………………………………………………………46 Figure 3: Findhorn Ecovillage: Sustainable Housing…………………………………………………………………………………..47 Figure 4: Findhorn Ecovillage: Living Machine………………………………………………………………………………………….47 Figure 5: Findhorn Ecovillage: Educational Programming………………………………………………………………………...48 Figure 6: Centre for Alternative Technologies Context Map………………………………………………………………………..50 Figure 7: Centre for Alternative Technologies Map…………………………………………………………………………………….50 Figure 8: Centre for Alternative Technologies: Sustainable Construction……………………………………………………51 Figure 9: Centre for Alternative Technologies: Sustainable Materials………………………………………………………...51 Figure 10: Centre for Alternative Technologies: Educational Programming……………………………………………….52 Figure 11: Context Map…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….58 Figure 12: Channelized ditch flowing through the property……………………………………………………………………….59 Figure 13: Channelized ditch flowing through the property……………………………………………………………………….60 Figure 14: Successional Vegetation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………62 Figure 15: Restored prairie (early Spring)…………………………………………………………………………………………………62 Figure 16: Single-­‐family home located at Southern property border………………………………………………………….63 Figure 17: Demonstration house at Southern border of property……………………………………………………………….63 Figure 18: Gravel road accessing Northern half of property……………………………………………………………………….64 Figure 19: Trailhead running through the property…………………………………………………………………………………..65 Figure 20: Trailhead running through the property acting as a burn break……………………………………………….65 Figure 21: Cooper/Skinner Vegetation Communities…………………………………………………………………………………67 Figure 22 Cooper/Skinner: Hydric Soils……………………………………………………………………………………………………..68 Figure 23 Cooper/Skinner: Vegetation Communities & Hydric Soils…………………………………………………………...69 Figure 24 Cooper/Skinner: Soil Composition……………………………………………………………………………………………..70 Figure 25 Cooper/Skinner: Grass Potential………………………………………………………………………………………………..71 Figure 26 Cooper/Skinner: Wetland Potential…………………………………………………………………………………………...72 Figure 27 Cooper/Skinner: Herbaceous Potential………………………………………………………………………………………73 Figure 28 Cooper/Skinner: Woodland Potential………………………………………………………………………………………...74 Figure 29 Cooper/Skinner: Vegetation Communities & Slope %..........................................................................................75 Figure 30 Inventory: Layered…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….76 Figure 31 Inventory: Hydrology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..77 Figure 32 Inventory: Surrounding Context………………………………………………………………………………………………...78 Figure 33 Inventory: Adequate Complexity Threshold………………………………………………………………………………..79 Figure 34: Infrastructure Location & Site Programming……………………………………………………………………………83 Figure 35: Baseline Sampling Punnett Square…………………………………………………………………………………………...94 Figure 36: Adequate Complexity VOC Sampling Control…………………………………………………………………………….95 Figure 37: Cross-­‐talk Row Crop…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………99 Figure 38: Diversification Gradient Section: Row Crop……………………..............……………………………………………..102 Figure 39: Diversification Sampling Proposed Programming………………………………………………………….............103 Figure 40: Simplification Gradient Section: Mature Woodland …………………………………..................................….…105 Figure 41: Simplification Sampling Proposed Programming: Mature Woodland ……………………………………..106 Figure 42: Simplification Sampling Proposed Programming: New Prairie………………………………………………..107 Figure 43: Simplification Sampling Proposed Programming: Old Prairie…………………………………………………108 Figure 44: Simplification Gradient Section: Prairies...............................................................................................................109 Figure 45: Cross-­‐Talk: Resource Allocation.................................................................................................................................111 Figure 46: Cross-­‐Talk: Resource Allocation 2.............................................................................................................................111 8 Figure 47: Designing with Biomimicry..........................................................................................................................................112 Figure 48: Permaculture Guild: Plan..............................................................................................................................................112 Figure 49: Permaculture Guild: Section........................................................................................................................................112 Figure 50: Hydrologic Cycle................................................................................................................................................................113 Figure 51: Hydologic Cycle 2..............................................................................................................................................................113 Figure 52: Fluvial Geomorphology: Thalweg Section..............................................................................................................114 Figure 53: Fluvial Geomorphology: Thalweg Plan...................................................................................................................114 Figure 54: Regenerative Design........................................................................................................................................................114 Figure 55: Living Soil.............................................................................................................................................................................115 Figure 56: Waste As Food 1.................................................................................................................................................................115 Figure 57: Waste As Food 2.................................................................................................................................................................115 Figure 58: Producers-­‐Consumers-­‐Decomposers........................................................................................................................115 Figure 59: Design Infrastructure Zone...........................................................................................................................................117 Figure 60: Master Plan: 250 scale....................................................................................................................................................121 Figure 61: Master Plan: 80 scale.......................................................................................................................................................122 Figure 62: Circulation Diagram........................................................................................................................................................123 Figure 63: Vegetation Gradients Diagram...................................................................................................................................124 Figure 64: Waste and Hydrology Diagram..................................................................................................................................125 Figure 65: Viewshed Diagram............................................................................................................................................................126 Figure 66: Property Entrance............................................................................................................................................................127 Figure 67: View of Center.....................................................................................................................................................................127 Figure 68: View from the Observation Deck................................................................................................................................128 Figure 69: Living & Social Campus Entrance..............................................................................................................................128 Figure 70: Cafe, Grocer/Market, and Production Greenhouse Section............................................................................129 Figure 71: Cooper/Skinner Redesigned Stream Diagram.....................................................................................................130 Figure 72: Exploded Stream Diagram............................................................................................................................................131 Figure 73: Redesigned Stream: Waterborne Program...........................................................................................................132 Figure 74: Living Machine: Image 1................................................................................................................................................133 Figure 75: Living Machine: Image 2................................................................................................................................................134 Figure 76: Living Machine: Image 3 ...............................................................................................................................................134 Figure 77: Compost Unit: Image 1...................................................................................................................................................135 Figure 78: Compost Unit: Image 2...................................................................................................................................................135 Figure 79: Observation Deck: Image 1...........................................................................................................................................136 Figure 80: Observation Deck: Image 2...........................................................................................................................................136 Figure 81: Outdoor Kitchen: Image 1.............................................................................................................................................137 Figure 82: Outdoor Kitchen: Image 2.............................................................................................................................................137 Figure 83: Amphitheater/Outdoor Classroom: Image 1........................................................................................................138 Figure 84: Amphitheater/Outdoor Classroom: Image 2........................................................................................................138 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
As humans continue to dominate the earth and its landscapes, we further reduce its
resiliency and naturalness. In mainstream planning and design strategies, it is commonplace
to clear-cut or strip the landscape of all vegetation and engineer the site to be “developed”
with homogenized and compacted soils and monocultures of hybridized and genetically
modified plants. Additionally, these plants are often clones of one another and typically of
the same age. As this design and construction mentality persists, genetic diversity and
evolutionary species adaptations will continue to deteriorate. With our simplified
constructed and/or developed landscapes, ecosystem functions and services are lost and the
ability of landscapes to evolve and complexify over time are diminished.
This chapter explores the dynamics of natural systems, naturally occurring
phenomena and traditional and contemporary styles of land development. These topics are
at the heart of the project and can be considered the central dogma of the project itself.
Through examining these topics, problems/subproblems, delimitations and assumptions are
made contributing to the evolution of this project. The topics discussed in this chapter are
categorized for clarification purposes.
10 Nature is Self-Sustaining
Nature has always been self-sustaining. With natural systems co-evolving with one
another, all material is used and reused. There is no such thing as waste. All material, prior or
post being used is food for something else in the natural system. Living things maintain a
dynamic stability--continually juggling resources without waste (Benyus, 1997).
Furthering our understanding of nature and its self-sustaining capacity creates significant
opportunity to develop new and environmentally beneficial design strategies and technologies.
Nature has a profound ability to determine the optimal resolution of a variety of problems and
situations. We should now become students who strive to learn from ecological systems, how to
develop new self-sustaining designs. We now need to learn to “be a part of, not apart from”
nature (Benyus, 1997). Integrating natural design strategies into our current design strategies will
further move us toward a sustainable future. Developing regenerative systems that provide
resources during their operational functions frees the system from a linear system of throughput
flows, and provides a model that does not starve the system of resources (Lyle, 1994).
Designing with Nature
Nature has developed ingenious ways to interconnect with climatic, and abiotic
processes, thus successfully maintaining an existence on Earth. As we alter landscapes, we tend
to change these abiotic processes that subsequently require organisms to adapt to survive.
“Understanding the human relationship to the interaction of the geology, soils, topography,
flora, and fauna unique to a place is the first step by which a culture can learn to live in stable
harmony with the earth” (Patchett, 2008).
Humans have viewed themselves to be above natural systems and have continually
modified and domesticated landscapes to their immediate, perceived benefit. We do not seem to
11 understand that “we are still beholden to ecological laws, the same as any other life-form”
(Benyus, 1997). After simplifying landscapes over time, we are now consequently beginning to
recognize the repercussions of such behavior through items like increased pest pressure, loss of
ecosystems services and the need for increased non-renewable input applications. We are also
realizing that a new self-sustaining, locally inspired and adapted design methodology for
landscape development must be created and implemented. “People may modify the land to suit
their purposes but it is wise to remember that the land must be used in accordance with its
capabilities as established by geologic history and expressed in landscape shapes and underlying
deposits” (Patchett, 2008).
Traditional Design Strategies/Landscape Simplification
According to Western (2001), by the 20th century, 40-50% of land surface had been
visibly transformed for domestic production and settlement. Culturally accustomed to
dominating or “improving” nature, in our humanistic reductionist fashion, we are gradually
diminishing the complexity that is the natural world (Benyus, 1997). Typical human
development strategies reduce natural complexities in numerous ways. In developing a
constructed site, we remove all vegetation, alter the soil, construct structures, and replant the site
with merely a handful of species. In agriculturally developed constructed landscapes, beyond
clearing all vegetation, we introduce irrigation tiles and millions of hectares globally of
monocultures of plants derived from genetically modified and cloned plant species. In doing so,
“we practice a human-centered approach to management, assuming nature’s way of managing
[the land] had nothing of value to teach us” (Benyus, 1997).
Through simplifying the landscape and subsequent ecosystems, we “greatly reduce
species diversity” and nature’s innate resilience and self-sustainment (Western, 2011). As we
12 have simplified landscapes over time, we have selected species of both flora and fauna for
human-benefiting needs. These dominant, domesticated species are highly modified to
withstand the pressures of surviving within simplified landscapes (Western, 2011). Depending
upon humans for many of their resource needs, these landscapes are far from self-sustaining or
capable of providing ecosystem services. Best said by Patchett (2008), “the landscape is
essentially designed to divest itself of water and resources, the two components it needs most.”
Whether designed for maximum yield or for pure aesthetics, constructed landscapes
depend on humans for resource and protection needs. With flora diversity reduced to a handful
of species in designed or large-scale industrial landscapes, herbivorous predation increases and
therefore requires higher non-renewable inputs applications to our simplified landscapes.
In numerous studies, an unmistakable link between landscape simplification, pest
pressure, and insecticide use has been identified (Meehan, 2011). With the increase in natural,
diverse landscapes being converted to domesticated, simplified landscapes the increase in pest
pressure requires growing insecticide application annually. Having no diversity in proximity to
these simplified landscapes to host pest-predators, “agronomic intensification has transformed
many agricultural landscapes into expansive monocultures with little natural habitat” thus
rendering the crop defenseless against pest invasions (Meehan, 2011).
Contemporary Design Strategies
Contemporary design strategies, developed from natural systems approaches and
ecological relationships, do not generate the same shortcomings created from traditional,
landscape design strategies. These design strategies are developed upon the identified necessity
of diversity needed within a site. Biodiversity itself generates numerous commodities like food,
fiber, chemical products, ecosystem services of controlling water, recycling and cleaning the
13 environment, and inspirational, aesthetic, and existence values (Forman, 1995). There are a
multitude of agricultural strategies having high species diversity, whom of which, produce many
of these commodities.
More contemporary agricultural models, like permaculture, new-alchemy farming, threestory farming, and hardwood forest strategies all develop their yield producing models from
nature (Benyus, 1997). While some of these strategies focus more on site successional practices
and others on a more holistic design approach of ecological interactions between plant species,
none have yet to become mainstream in large-scale industrial agricultural use. Regardless of the
scale at which these contemporary agriculture models are used, they all understand and
incorporate the need for diversity, and integrate numerous ecosystem functions, into their
structural framework. Other strategies for increasing diversity like intercropping, cover
cropping, or even tolerating weeds may enhance biological control and diminish pest created
damage (Rusch, 2010).
Ecosystem Services
While “society places value on the multiple ecosystem functions from soil fertility to
erosion control to wildlife-carrying capacity, these functions are potentially threatened by
ongoing biodiversity losses” (Zavaleta, 2010). If species diversity continues to fall, ecosystem
services will eventually be lost. One way we continue to diminish ecosystem services is through
the conversion of natural land to arable land. “Global stocks and flows of water, nutrients,
pollinators, [and pest predators] are altered, reducing the capacity of many ecosystem services to
support human activity” (Garibaldi, 2011). Through this conversion of natural land to arable
land, crop pollination continues to diminish while pest predation continues to rise. Regarding
14 pest predation “natural pest regulation is considered one of the most important services of
biodiversity with an estimated value of 400 billion dollars per year” (Rusch, 2010).
Although humans provide resources to our simplified landscapes, many crops also
require assistance provided to them through ecosystem services (Garibaldi, 2011). These
services include items like natural irrigation and pollination and natural pest regulation.
“According to Garibaldi (2011), crop pollination is often subject to little direct management and
so is provided almost entirely as an ecosystem service and can increase production of
approximately 75 percent of the 115 most important crops worldwide”. With the visitation and
diversity of wild pollinators declining as natural and seminatural habitats decline, crop
pollination may increasingly become a human-provided service (Garibaldi, 2011).
With high dependence on ecosystem functions, in addition to anthropogenic sources,
“the mean and variance in the delivery of ecosystem services influence the mean and stability of
agricultural productivity” (Garibaldi, 2011). Assessing the presence of these ecosystem services
may dictate the level to which human intervention is required to maintain high yield production.
Items like “changes in habitat, species composition, physical characteristic, and biogeographical
cycles”, can all be used as quantifiable measures of human impact on ecosystems (Western,
2011).
Non-renewable Inputs
By diminishing biodiversity and subsequent ecosystem services due to landscape
simplification, we created the need for non-renewable inputs like fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, and water. These must be routinely applied to maintain high production yields.
Then, with most if not all of the ecosystem services wiped-out, herbivorous pests can wreak
havoc on row crop health and productivity. In response to this occurrence, pesticides are then
15 typically applied in large volumes in efforts to reduce pest predation events. Studies conducted
my Meehan (2011) reported a “positive relationship between the proportions of cropland treated
with insecticides and crop pest abundance, and a positive relationship between crop pest
abundance and the proportion of cropland in a county. “Across the seven-state [breadbasket]
region in 2007, landscape simplification was associated with insecticide application to 1.4 million
hectares and an increase in direct costs totaling $34 and $103 million” (Meehan, 2011). Stated by
Rusch (2010), “enhancing agroecosystems appear to be one of the main ways in which we can
decrease the use of chemical pesticides for pest control”.
With abiotic events like runoff occurring each time it rains, sheetflow running downhill
collects sediments, pesticides, “herbicides, extra fertilizer, and anything else added to it”
(Patchett, 2008). As water collects these materials, leaching and depleting the soil of its only
nutriment, the crop or lawn must endure until the next application of these non-renewable
inputs. With sites having varying topography, “water flowing downhill carries resources with it
leaving the top of the hill bereft of resources, and renders the bottom of the hill surfeited with
them” (Patchett, 2008).
Biomimicry
Identifying abiotic processes like runoff, which occur naturally and always will, and
designing constructed landscapes to function and thrive within these natural processes, would
together, allow us to become increasingly integrated into natural systems while also capitalizing
on natural processes—regenerative processes. “The mode of land use and the degree to which it
mimics land functions is the key” (Western, 2001). Biomimicry as defined by Janine Benyus in
Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, is the conscious emulation of life genius. By
understanding and incorporating nature’s evolutionarily adapted design strategies into our own,
16 we may become better integrated into abiotic and biotic processes and capitalize on the
ecosystem services they inherently provide. “The biomimicry revolution introduces an era based
on not what we can extract from nature but what we can learn from her” (Benyus, 1997).
Cross-talk
Scientists have speculated for some time that plants communicate with one another. But
scientists have never had any real scientific basis on which to stake these claims. A strategy
discovered through the study of a relatively new approach to understanding how plant
ecosystems survive and thrive, called “cross-talk”, offers new potential. Cross-talk is a naturally
occurring phenomenon that allows plants and microbial bacteria to have a dialogue. This
includes plants and microbial bacteria communicating with one another using Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs). These organic, chemical compounds allow the organisms to relay
important information on items like drought, herbivory, salt, disease, pathogens, etc., and to
provide valuable information to other surrounding organisms. These surrounding organisms
(plants and microbial bacteria) may then allocate their own resources in a proactive, beneficial,
and symbiotic way. Allowing the plants to know whom their neighbors are, where to develop
new growth in regard to light or nutriment, and when danger is near are just a few examples of
how these organisms communicate. This natural phenomenon of cross-talk is dependent upon
millions of years of evolution and diversity. By continuing our current development practices
we further disrupt these natural systems and their ability to cross-talk thereby decreasing this
natural capacity. Further understanding and applying this understanding of cross-talk to a site
design will demonstrate how living systems are integrated, and how they can achieve our design
needs while simultaneously addressing the needs of the community of life.
17 The Project
This project offers alternatives to reductive, industrialized agricultural design strategies.
These include more integrated types of agriculture (permaculture, new-alchemy farming, threestory farming, and hardwood forest models) as well as proposing a mixture of plant types
(intercropping, cover cropping, and mixed cropping models). This project recognizes the
persistence of industrial agricultural practices and proposes a new approach. This new approach
facilitates maximization of the mentality of agriculture while addressing the many issues this
practice generates. Understanding the occurrence of landscape fragmentation due to continual
human development and designing within these parameters is essential to developing this new
methodology to simplified landscapes. Integrating natural design strategies of species movement
and communication are at the heart of this design methodology.
This design proposes incorporating a series patches into the human-created
monoculture. The contention is that these patches can provide valuable information that can
fertilize, pollinate, and protect the monoculture. These introduced patches will extend the
ecology found within the surrounding vegetative environments into the monocultural “dead
zone”. Further, the contention is that these patches will have rapid colonization of species and
diversity from the surrounding vegetative environments that may then provide for the
monoculture.
The meta-populations of introduced patches provide habitat for diverse microbial
bacteria, macroinvertebrate, flora, and fauna communities. This ecology provides many
ecosystem functions that do not exist within simplified monocultures. Having these patches
acting as islands allows natural ecosystem services to occur within the monocultural “dead
zone”.
18 This strategy of ecologically diverse patches located throughout the simplified landscape
allows valuable information to be transmitted through both airborne and waterborne (microbial
bacteria adsorbed to sediment) VOC communicating with organisms within the surrounding
row crop. Through irrigating the introduced patches, runoff carrying microbial bacteria
adsorbed to sediments, flows downhill transporting the VOC emitting microbial bacteria into
the surrounding monoculture plots. By transporting the microbial bacteria, the range of VOC
emission may be extended, therefore providing the monoculture with access to cross-talk
dialogue. This extended range can encompass full coverage of the monoculture plot and can
provide information necessary for the monoculture species immunity and productivity. By
educating and elevating the immunity of the monoculture through VOCs, pesticide and
herbicide application can be significantly reduced or eliminated. This can free the system of its
fossil fuel dependence that power current non-renewable input applications. Although this
specific design approach of transporting microbial bacteria through runoff to increase effective
VOC range has never been attempted, the hypothesized outcome is realistic. This strategy uses
stormwater runoff as a naturally occurring abiotic process to passively execute the design intent.
This example of using abiotic processes as a design mentality, demonstrates one way to utilize
abiotic process in a design intervention
Determining where introduced patches of ecologically diverse species should be located
is dependent upon identifying existing ecosystem functions and the volume of VOC emissions
within the site. This creative project has been designed to advance an understanding of how
locations where ecosystem functions and/or VOC emission appear low (found within simplified
landscapes) and how lost ecosystems functions or diminished VOC emission may be elevated
through biological design interventions. Through introducing biodiverse patches both
ecosystem functions and VOC emission may be elevated or even restored. If testing proves this
19 hypothesis true, simplified landscapes may be designed to execute their intended purpose while
having the adequate complexity for the system to further evolve and complexify overtime.
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE
The contention is that by better understanding cross-talk and how it may be utilized as a
naturally occurring ecosystem service, constructed landscapes can be designed to become selfsustaining. Providing one another with valuable information, plants can reduce their
dependency on humans and again re-establish their natural self-reliant ways. By designing
constructed landscapes around these principles, we can also improve the quality of our
atmosphere through the reduction of fertilizers and pesticides, provide ourselves with healthier
food sources, and reduce our irrigation needs.
Fully understanding the implications of growing global populations and their
dependence upon industrial food production, this project develops a new approach that
addresses the numerous issues industrial agriculture creates. Further it supports the continued
optimization for high crop yields. This project proposes a “common ground” that attempts to
be self-sustaining and that allows us to be integrated into natural systems. “Reaching our limits,
then, if we choose to admit them to ourselves, may be an opportunity for us to leap to a new
phase of coping, in which we adapt to the Earth rather than the other way around” (Benyus,
1997).
20 DEFINITION OF PROBLEM & SUBPROBLEMS
Problem
Design a sustainable educational and research center on the Cooper-Skinner site,
Muncie, Indiana, that contributes to the understanding of the relationship of 1) humandominated, simplified landscapes, 2) cross-talk among organisms as the way of enhancing
ecosystems health and landscape performance and 3) the management of health and productivity
of site based built landscape design.
Subproblems
•
Contribute to the understanding of cross-talk (the concept) in organisms and advance understanding of
the relationships of simplified landscapes and cross-talk among organisms
Several cross-talk programs using experimental test plots are designed throughout the site to
expand our understanding of cross-talk as a naturally occurring phenomenon. These plots are
designed around the two identified variables relating to cross-talk; biodiversity and proximity.
Design elements using these parameters include parking lots that vary the number of parking
spots between planters and vary the diversity and number of species within the planters. This
allows the testing of VOC emissions produced by the parking lot and the parking lots ability to
feed adjacent plots. Design elements also include highly vegetated patches located throughout
the row crop plots. This allows testing of VOC emissions from the patches and the patches
ability to feed adjacent plots. Finally, the project design elements include numerous field
21 stations located throughout the property, which facilitate the collection of data on VOC
emissions.
Experimental test plots are designed to study the implication of varying the levels of species
diversity within each plot. Knowledge collected from these plots will advance our understanding
of cross-talk and its application in required levels of species diversity fostering self-sustaining
landscapes.
To advance our knowledge of cross-talk, the education and research center is also designed
to optimize the types of lab experiments that can be conducted on additional parameters, such
as plant communities, plant types, depredation through herbivorous sources and canopy
presence. Research of these additional test parameters can further enhance our knowledge of
cross-talk while providing us with valuable information related to landscape site design.
•
Increase understanding of how to optimize learning about the relationship between cross-talk and the
evolution of healthy constructed landscapes
The Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center and laboratory are both designed to
educate and inspire the public, students, and researchers about cross-talk. The facilities are
designed to be open to the public and transparent in communication of the research through
displaying work administered by employees and researchers in the greenhouse areas. Visitors
can view the greenhouse and research areas, and additional display cases and cross-talk exhibits
are found throughout the lobby area.
Parking lots and row crop patches are designed to facilitate research and education about
VOC emission and design strategies for cross-talk to support “feeding and fertilizing” the
22 adjacent plots, to highlight the capacity of cross-talk and to highlight the relationship of crosstalk in constructed landscapes.
•
Design a sustainable learning center as a place for individuals to learn how to become part of healthy
systems
The Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center building and site are designed to teach
people about biomimicry inspired strategies and how they may be incorporated into constructed
site designs. Specifically, the Center focuses on cross-talk, its significance in flora communities,
and its relationship to adjacent simplified landscapes.
The building itself hosts numerous lecture halls, classrooms, and conference rooms that
together provide space for seminars, workshops, and classroom setting instruction.
Additionally, the building greenhouse is designed to be a large display/exhibit space where
individuals may view cross-talk experiments being administered and learn about this naturally
occurring phenomenon and future research avenues. Located outside the greenhouse, landscape
exhibits display and illustrate current and evolving understandings of cross-talk and the
laboratory research process.
The site is designed to provide a number of educational experiences for homeowners,
students, farmers, and developers to enjoy. Parking lots, for example, not only fulfill parking
needs; they are also designed as VOC “patch-plant bed” experiments, providing landscape
destinations for people to enjoy while learning about cross-talk and VOC emission.
This parking lot design is aimed toward developed area applications in urban and suburban
contexts. Test plots are designed to conduct research on VOC emission in relation to landscape
23 edges, dispersal range, and diversifying/simplifying species gradient thresholds. Cross-talk
gardens are designed to provide homeowners with knowledge about cross-talk and planting
designs and combinations best suited to enhance cross-talk. Utilizing these suggested planting
designs would allow homeowner’s gardens to be increasingly self-sustaining and to require less
maintenance and non-renewable inputs.
The parking lot design is also aimed at agricultural applications. An industrial agriculture
program is proposed to demonstrate to land developers and farmers a self-sustaining industrial
food production approach. For example, how row crop patches function as a design strategy
that facilitates cross-talk while conserving water, mitigating erosion, and providing a food source
to row crop pests could be the focus of an educational program. This display of cross-talk in an
industrial agricultural setting illustrates to land developers and farmers a new self-sustaining (selfwatering, fertilizing, and protecting) agricultural concept.
•
Address contemporary agricultural methods and make suggestions for improving these methods by
integrating natural system capabilities like cross-talk
Contemporary industrial agriculture aims to maximize the landscape regarding short-term
production yield. Row crop species are placed at the threshold to which maximum yield is
obtained and are nurtured with numerous chemical concoctions (fertilizers, pesticides, and
herbicides) and water. With current industrial agriculture design, the application of these nonrenewable inputs and water through nozzles and spray heads facilitates water loss and the release
of chemicals into the atmosphere. Furthermore, water that is not absorbed into the soil or plant
body collects as runoff, thereby increasing erosive events and transport of non-renewable input
chemical residues. Having monocultures, row crops are also highly susceptible to pest invasions
24 and require high volumes and numerous applications of pesticides. These practices are not
healthy to the environment or sustainable.
The contention is that by integrating natural, biomimicry design principles, a more selfsustaining industrial agriculture design may be introduced. To facilitate research related to this,
the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center is designed to house a cross-talk inspired,
self-sustaining row crop design concept that “feeds and fertilizes” itself while conserving water,
mitigating soil loss, reducing or eliminating the need for non-renewable inputs, and providing
habitat for wildlife. This suggested design is estimated herein to remove approximately twentyfive percent of the row crop area and replace it with dense, biodiverse, native plantings located
at the crest of small slopes. The suggested removal of approximately twenty-five percent of row
crop and converting it into dense, native planting is due to livestock naturally grazing on
vegetation and not derivatives of industrial corn production.
Retention ponds, surrounded by vegetated buffers, are located at the bottom of the slope
and placed in hydric soil conditions. These retention ponds provide water for irrigation
purposes and a cleansing catchment to stormwater run-off. With row crops placed between the
native patches and retention ponds found evenly throughout the site, the design contention is
that effective VOC emission through airborne and waterborne sources can reach all areas of the
site, thereby benefiting all areas of the row crop agricultural production system.
•
Contribute to the evolution of standard design and construction methodologies by mimicking the dynamic
strategy of natural succession.
Nature is not comprised of genetically modified, hybridized monocultures of plants. It has a
wide variety of species at various stages of their lifecycle. By integrating this strategy of
25 biodiverse, step-wise growth plantings, constructed landscapes can be better equipped to survive
varying climatic conditions, pest invasions, and human-induced pollution events. Having a
variety of species, no single species is targeted and completely wiped out. Furthermore, mature
plant species nearing the end of their lives deteriorate and provide valuable nutrients to
surrounding plant bodies. By capitalizing on these simple design strategies, our constructed
landscapes can be hardier and self-sustaining.
•
Demonstrate the feasibility of integrating natural systems into landscape design strategies
Integrating natural systems into landscape design processes to move them beyond the
human reductive mentality can be achieved through incorporating biomimicry design strategies.
Knowing these biomimicry process strategies is key to achieve design integration success.
Incorporating step-wise growth strategies, successional site strategies, meta-population theory
principles, and cross-talk principles into designed row crop patches, parking lots, cross-talk
gardens, and VOC test plots are all examples of how plant-based biomimicry processes can be
integrated into constructed landscape site design. Combining different plant-based biomimicry
process strategies from any of these four biomimicry sources can provide diverse site
opportunities and levels of self-sustainment.
•
Demonstrate the feasibility of living within natural system
With design of the structures (including housing) developed around natural systems and
climatic conditions, in addition to sustainable techniques and technologies being incorporated
throughout the property, the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center demonstrates how
26 people can effectively live within natural systems. Beyond utilizing sustainable technologies, the
property demonstrates how site design may be informed through natural systems (i.e.,
greenhouses having southern exposure, structures designed to promote passively cooling from
westerly winds, etc). Natural systems considered in the design of the Center include items like
wind direction, water collection and mitigation, solar direction, and soil types and compositions.
These systems and their design potential are used to inform the design of the Center and
ultimately demonstrate to site visitors, how natural systems can be incorporated and capitalized
upon in site design.
DELIMITATIONS & ASSUMPTIONS
Delimitations
•
This project will not address other crucial resource issues and relationships (such as
carbon footprint and emissions, soil quality and reclamation, water quality and
reclamation, etc.) at a detailed level, but addressed at a more conceptual level.
Assumptions
•
Cross talk is a valid theory in understanding how plants and microbial bacteria efficiently
identify and communicate with one another and subsequent resource allocation
o Cross-talk is more effective in a context of increased biodiversity.
27 o Cross-talk is more effective when other cross-talking capable organisms are
within close proximity
o Cross-talking increases species resilience and survival rates regarding drought,
herbivory, pathogens, disease, and salt tolerances and intolerances
o VOC emitting organisms can prime neighbors on effective and timely reaction to
specific pest predators
o Cross-talk fosters adequate complexity for natural systems to evolve and
complexify overtime
•
Redefining the methodological approach to design by integrating natural biomimetic
strategies into landscape architecture will be of value
•
Predictions in this creative project concerning regions where cross-talk capabilities would
be increased or diminished and where ecosystem functions would be increased or
decreased will be assumed to be correct.
•
Identifications of recurring patterns or themes within the literature pertaining to the
capabilities of cross-talk in regard to the presence of water, proximity of cross-talking
capable organisms and resources, and biodiversity will be assumed to be correct.
•
Recurring patterns or themes identified via analysis of case studies or exemplars will be
assumed to be correct.
METHODOLOGY
Content analysis of case studies and scientific reports was done in order to find any
recurring patterns or themes within the material pertaining to the increased capabilities of crosstalk as a naturally occurring capacity of plants and microbial bacteria to communicate. Further
28 content analysis was administered pertaining to the occurrence of cross-talk regarding the
relative proximity of other cross-talking capable organisms and resources, and the significance of
variation in biodiversity on cross-talk. Developmental research was utilized to highlight the
comparisons and contrasts between the presence and increase in strength of cross-talk
capabilities.
Content analysis of sustainable education exemplars was done in order to find any
recurring patterns or themes within the material demonstrating previous design strategies used in
educational development and execution. This analysis included evaluation of the effectiveness
of the projects’ development and execution strategies, and used this insight to inform the project
itself
Once the initial content analysis and developmental research were completed, on-site
mapping and a basic knowledge of cross-talk were used to predict regions where cross-talk
capabilities would seem to be increased or diminished and where the systems potential of
adequate ecological complexity would be increased or diminished.
Design Synthesis
A sustainable educational center on the Cooper-Skinner site, Muncie, Indiana, was
designed to contribute to the understanding of the relationship of cross-talk among organisms
and simplified landscapes and the management of health and productivity of site-based built
landscape design. Execution of this project and methodologies used influence the design
process and justified the final site-design itself.
In executing this project, well-established professional landscape design processes were
followed. Initial inventory and analysis of the site were conducted to better understand the site,
29 its conditions, and design opportunities while administering a review of the literature relevant to
this project. Once site inventory and analysis were complete goals and objectives and site
programming (identifying human and environmental needs) were generated to provide direction
for several early conceptual site designs integrating knowledge on biomimetic design strategies
like cross-talk. After creating a final site design, a conclusive summary with future
recommendations was completed.
This creative project explored and applied these biomimetic strategies in a site design
with specific focus on developing adequately complex landscapes within the context of
simplified, constructed landscapes. It incorporated biomimetic strategies that plants and
microbial bacteria use to communicate, and used those to inform the design and to allow the
design to better predict the threshold of plant communication via cross-talk. End products
include interior and exterior experimental programming, site graphics, and encompassed
guidelines used for project development.
This chapter provided a brief overview of the key concepts and considerations informing
the design of the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center. These concepts and
considerations are the framework of this project. In the next chapter, a detailed exploration of
these and other key topics defines and identifies the mentality behind this project and its natural
systems inspirations.
CHAPTER 2
EXPLORATION OF TOPICS
The following exploration of topics defines and identifies key terms that are essential
to understanding the design of the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center and its
natural systems inspirations. Major concepts covered include landscape simplification,
ecosystem services, non-renewable inputs, biomimicry, cross-talk, and meta-population as
introduced patches. Ecological structure topics having relevance to the final design are also
explored. These include edges and ecotones. The chapter concludes with an overview of
considerations related to the major topics explored and their role in the final design. The
topics discussed in this chapter are categorized for clarification purposes.
31 DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following definitions provide a foundation for understanding the framework and
direction taken for this creative project.
Landscape Simplification
The reduction of species diversity and subsequent ecosystem services; as described,
“agricultural landscapes across the planet have lost considerable amounts of natural habitat to
crop production, plant diversity at the patch and landscape scale has declined, and crop patches
have increased in size and connectivity” (Meehan, 2011) Ecosystem Services
Services passively provided through complex natural systems; includes “provisioning services
such as food and water, regulating services such as flood and disease control, cultural services such as
spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits, and supporting services such as nutrient cycling that
maintain the conditions for life on Earth” (GreenFacts.org).
Non-renewable Inputs
Synthetic chemicals like fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides applied to a site created
with or from non-renewable resources i.e. fossil fuels, natural gas, oil, coal, and synthetically
composed chemicals; “any natural resource from the Earth that exists in limited supply and
cannot be replaced if it is used up; any natural resource that cannot be replenished by natural
means at the same rates that it is consumed” (Dictionary.com)
32 Biomimicry
Utilizing concepts found in nature/natural processes to influence design solutions; “the
conscious emulation of life’s genius” (Benyus, 1997)
Cross-talk
The ability of plants and microbial bacteria to communicate and relay information
related to changing conditions; referred to and described as plant-plant signaling, “results from
cues that are emitted from a plant in a plastic and conditional manner and that cause rapid
responses in a receiver” (Heil, 2009)
Meta-population
Sub-populations within or outside of the greater population and often used to increase
transitional space within a site; as described “the regional persistence of a population is made
possible by a stochastic balance between the extinction of local populations and the colonization
of previously empty habitat patches” (Levins, 1969)
Edges
The border between two adjacent habitats; “the connection of two borders of habitats
and serves as distribution zone” (Forman, 1995)
Ecotones
The transitional space between two adjacent habitats; “the overlap or transition zone
between two plant or animal communities” (Forman, 1995)
33 “It has some of the characteristics of each bordering community and often contains species not
found in the overlapping communities” (Thomas, 2011)
Host-parasitoid
Typically defined as patches within fragmented landscapes; functions as a habitat and
food source for arthropods; “host–parasitoid systems are highly variable and the parasitoid and
its host generally respond to spatial subdivision at different spatial scales” (Rusch, 2010)
Conservation Biological Control
Utilizing natural systems processes to maintain an adequate species balance; described as
“effective pest population management using natural pest-predators or within-field diversity in
agricultural contexts” (Rusch, 2010)
34 LANDSCAPE SIMPLIFICATION
The following section describes how strategies used in conventional development
simplify constructed and industrialized landscapes. This section also discusses incurred costs
and future implications of these strategies.
“In our quest for ever-increasing production [and aesthetically pleasing landscapes], we
removed their [plants] inborn defenses and isolated them from mixed species groupings,
narrowing their genetic diversity” (Benyus, 1997). Having hybridized, cultivared, genetically
modified, and cloned plant species in both our domestic and industrial agricultural landscapes,
we have decreased nature’s built-in resiliency and ability to replicate. Patchett describes, plants
used in simplified landscapes are not really alive in the sense they are no longer members of a
community and contributing their genetic diversity to species reproduction. Furthermore, once
the liabilities associated with human-generated landscape simplification are understood, it is not
sufficient to simply allow nature to take its course (Patchett, 2008). This simplified landscape
does not have the adequate complexity needed to be a self-sustaining, self-replicating ecosystem.
This biological reduction of diversity and subsequent ecosystem functions does not support life
and is not sustainable. In no way is this universal simplification of plants representative of being
integrated into or even utilizing nature’s capacity to produce within landscapes. “The health of
an ecosystem or a culture degrades in accordance with the degree to which it destabilizes or
simplifies itself, and there comes a time when there is not enough memory of the past or enough
potential for the future, to continue. The evolution of a system so compromised ceases”
(Patchett, 2008).
35 Landscape simplification, according to Meehan, incurs additional costs. Societal needs
of increased insecticide use create health problems from direct human exposure to air and water
pollution. In addition, use of insecticides increases resistance by crop pests, and reduces
ecosystem services provided. Beyond synthetic chemical use and its effect on human and
environmental health, the conversion of semi-natural land to cultivated land increases nutrient
leaching and runoff, reduction in flood control, and reductions in wildlife habitat and carbon
sequestration (Meehan, 2011). With the increased conversion of natural land to arable, these
incurred costs will continue to rise exponentially.
One way the incurred costs of landscape simplification may be reduced is the practice of
organic farming. Species richness [providing numerous ecosystem services] was found to have
increased by 30 percent or higher on average in biological groups, such as birds, arthropods, soil
organisms, and plants on organic farms (Rusch, 2010). Evidence suggests that the simplification
of land use associated with agrochemical dependence and inputs has a positively correlative
relationship to the reduction of environmental quality, biodiversity, and pests (Rusch, 2010).
Based upon Rusch’s findings biodiversity can be considered a surrogate parameter to quantifying
ecosystems services and incurred costs. In order to restore lost ecosystem services and diminish
these incurred costs, biodiversity must be a primary factor in decision-making regarding
landscape simplification practices.
As landscapes are simplified, the framework supporting healthy ecosystems deteriorates.
As this framework dissolves so do the ecosystems services encompassed.
36 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Through healthy ecosystems, services are provided benefitting both nature and us. This
section identifies those ecosystems services, species richness required maintaining those services,
and how our conventional land development strategies impede or diminish ecosystems services.
Ecosystem services provided include items like food “production, nutrient cycling, flood
regulation, climate regulation, biological control of pests and aesthetic value” (Rusch, 2010). In
order to maintain these numerous services, Zavaleta identified a positive correlative relationship
between species richness and ecosystem function. He discovered minimum-required species
richness necessary as the number of ecosystem functions increase (Zavaleta, 2010). Therefore,
to maintain numerous ecosystems services, high species diversity is required.
One example of how the simplification of landscapes reduces ecosystem services is the
reduction of crop pest management. By first converting diverse vegetative assemblages into
simplified monocultures and secondly increasing the size, density, and connectivity of host crop
patches, crop pest populations grow and are further capable of movement (Meehan, 2011). This
leads to “higher pest pressure regardless of natural enemy activity” (Meehan, 2011). However,
by increasing the biodiversity within simplified agricultural landscapes ecosystem services like
biological pest control and crop pollination may be restored. These crucial ecosystem services
are also impeded by the absence of arthropods in agricultural ecosystems (Thomas, 2011). To
restore the ecosystem services of biological pest control or crop pollination, biodiversity must be
incorporated into the monoculture. Through developing agroecosystems with more dependence
on ecosystem functions, industrial-farming systems can become more self-sustaining (Rusch,
2010).
37 In order to maintain services freely provided by ecosystems, new agroecosystems must
be developed. By incorporating biodiversity at the heart of new agroecosystems framework,
numerous ecosystem services lost or diminished may be restored alleviating both human and
environmental costs.
NON-RENEWABLE INPUTS
Through the reduction of species diversity and the loss of ecosystem services,
constructed and industrialized landscapes require input applications to survive and thrive. Due
to the necessity of applying non-renewable inputs, high economic and environmental costs are
acquired and continue to rise.
While reducing the opportunity for crop pest outbreaks, large-scale pesticide use has
been shown to diminish natural pest-predator species (Rusch, 2010). By diminishing natural
pest-predator species, natural, biological pest control systems can no longer function.
Therefore, more non-renewable inputs must be applied. “When scaled to the Midwestern
United States, we find that approximately 1.4 million hectares are treated with insecticides due to
increased pest pressure from landscape simplification” (Meehan, 2011). Knowing this we can
only assume that if our current industrial agriculture practices continue as is, insecticide use due
to increased pest pressure will continue to rise. Despite our continual application of 2.2 billion
pounds of pesticide annually in the United States, crop losses have increased by 20 percent in
the past 52 years (Benyus, 1997). One prime example of environmental degradation due to the
38 use of non-renewable inputs specifically in the Midwest is the now hypoxic dead zone of the
Gulf of Mexico. Due to pesticide leaching, agriculture is the number-one polluting industry in
the United States (Benyus, 1997).
Although this strategy of non-renewable application fosters high yield-producing crop,
this strategy is not a short-term or sustainable solution. As input applications continue to rise
with no end in sight, alternatives must be developed to replace this downward spiraling situation.
BIOMIMICRY
As an increasingly popular design trend, biomimicry uses naturally occurring design
solutions to address various design issues. Biomimetic design solutions should be considered in
addressing the shortcomings produced through landscape simplification practices.
Everything we use, interact with, or eat (other than food produced from the organic and
permacultures fads) has been designed through industrial design techniques or inspirations.
With the creation of numerous industrially designed structures and materials having to withstand
climatic pressures as living organisms must do, gaining inspiration through nature and
biomimicry techniques seems logical. By using biomimicry as a design strategy, sustainable
solutions may be developed. Designing truly sustainable environments means fostering human
needs in concert with natural process (Patchett, 2008). However, in contrast to this idea of a
sustainable methodology, most of our conventional approaches to infrastructure and planning
39 strategies have been developed with an emphasis on visual aesthetics or maximum short-term
yield with minimal understanding and relationship to place and localities (Patchett, 2008).
Utilizing natural ecosystem functions like pest-predator relationships found in nature in a
biomimetic design methodology is a sustainable approach for improving the many shortcomings
of industrial agriculture. Integrating these ecosystem functions through a biomimetic approach
to design can address issues regarding landscape simplification and have significant benefits in
the reduction of agrochemical use, human health concerns, and economic constraints. Looking
at biological pest conservation specifically, “integrated pest management strategies may be seen
as a complementation of different techniques to meet three main objectives” (Rusch, 2010).
These objective include: “(i) a production purpose (crop performance and quality of products),
(ii) socio-economic imperatives (farm organization, farm income), and (iii) environmental
objectives (limitation of pesticide and nitrogen discharge into the environment, minimization of
water, and energy use)” (Rusch, 2010).
Capitalizing on self-sustaining, biomimetic approaches to agriculture like permaculture,
allows the system to function naturally while not depleting the landscape (Benyus, 1997). By
integrating natural ecosystem services (only capable of functioning with rich species diversity)
into our current constructed landscape methodologies, we may then be sustainable in our
approach to land management and truly integrated into natural systems.
By incorporating ecosystem services and interorganismal communication through
biomimetic strategies, our design approaches to land development can be sustainable.
40 CROSS-TALK
Scientists have recently discovered the phenomena of interorganismal communication in
flora communities. The following section defines this phenomenon, its capacity and function,
and its biomimetic role in constructed and industrialized landscapes.
As the innate capacity of plants and microbial bacteria to communicate with one
another, cross-talk, allows floral organisms to respond to their local environment more rapidly
and efficiently. Having access to this local dialogue is crucial to the success and survival of an
individual and provides the opportunity to pass along its genetic code to subsequent generations.
Cross-talk is made possible through the transmission and reception of VOCs (Volatile
Organic Compounds). Also known as GLVs (Green Leafy Volatiles), VOCs are comprised of
six carbon aldehydes, alcohols, and esters specifically emitted in response to physical degradation
(Engelberth, 2004). This physical degradation may include the hindrance of plants to uptake
water through an increase in the presence of salts in local water, allelochemical (neighborsignaling), mechanical, or herbivorous induced damage (Engelberth and Kegge). The capacity of
cross-talk may also be assumed to exist in fauna organisms considering the ability of ants to
leave prescriptive pheromones or scent markings produced my mammalian species.
Using cross-talk through a biomimetic approach to developing a new agroecosystem
methodology can facilitate human needs of maximizing yield production while eradicating the
continual deterioration of our primary infrastructure and promote integration into local systems.
One approach is through restoring competition within simplified landscapes. Kegge suggests
that VOCs deliver information on neighboring competitors, regarding their identity and growth
rate. “Given the strong selection pressure during competition, rapid detection of neighbors,
41 followed by adaptive responses, is key to competitive success” (Kegge, 2009). This adaptive
response builds the individuals resiliency to degradation sources at the local level and may be
targeted as one approach to developing a new agroecosystem methodology.
VOCs, as described by Engelberth, can be considered as inducers of defense-related
processes in numerous plant species. Looking at industrial agricultural, specifically corn as a
primary plant species, corn seedlings exposed to VOC producing neighboring plants and
synthetically produced caterpillar regurgitant, produced significantly higher JA (jasmonic acid)
and sesquiterpenes when mechanically damaged in comparison to seedlings having no prior
exposure (Engelberth, 2004). This suggests that high yield producing species that have been
genetically modified over time can interact and respond to natural predation events through
naturally occurring systems dialogues like cross-talk.
By producing higher JA and sesquiterpenes in response to herbivorous attacks (4 – 6
times as much in previously exposed individuals), intact undamaged seedlings develop the
knowledge to counteract pending invasions with increasing success rates (Engelberth, 2004).
These “defense related processes are turned on but incompletely compared to actual herbivore
damage” and preparing a plant by yet-unknown mechanisms to react more efficiently to future
invasions (Engelberth, 2004). Furthermore, plants may tailor their defense responses to specific
herbivore invasions, enabling them to invest fewer resources when the defense related processes
are not needed (Heil, 2009).
By priming genetically modified, cloned, and cultivared species to respond more
efficiently to respective degradation sources, simplified landscapes may become part of the
cross-talk dialogue versus removed as an island of seclusion. The practice of non-renewable
42 input application may no longer be needed since cross-talk arms row crop species with the
knowledge to defend themselves against biotic invasion.
META-POPULATION; INTRODUCED PATCHES
With species-rich introduced patches proximate to industrialized monocultures, row
crop species have access to valuable information arming them against potential biotic invasion.
By introducing meta-populations of high plant species diversity adjacent or into
monocultures, these perennial species have prior knowledge of yearly pest invasions and can
transmit VOCs supporting the annually grown monocultures of conventional industrial
agriculture. Having these patches in close proximity to monocultures year-after-year, a
relationship of interdependence between the species-rich-patches and the monocultures begins
to take shape. These species rich patches can take-on herbivorous attacks, reducing the damage
to the monoculture body, since “parasitic plants and herbivorous insects can use VOCs to locate
their hosts” (Heil, 2009). Moreover, subsequent to large-scale herbivorous attack, VOCs
transmitted through the monoculture, since induced by the patch, may also decrease oviposition
(egg-laying) rates and increase egg predation (Engelberth, 2004).
Beyond pest invasion and subsequent plant reactions, VOCs are important in acting as
both neighbor-detection and allelochemical response (neighbor signaling; both positive or
negative) (Kegge, 2009). Kegge describes how VOCs affect neighboring plants in two ways:
“they can (i) cause allelopathic effects (eg. inhibit growth or developmental programs); and (ii) be
exploited by neighboring plants as cues for the proximate of neighboring competitors, thus
inducing or priming responses that increase the competitive power of the ‘eavesdropping’
43 neighbor.” However, Kegge explains that phenotypic (physical characteristic or trait) response
[due to resource allocation] only occurred in species rich environments inducing growth
responses conferring a fitness advantage. With numerous, diverse species competing for
resources like water in adjacent patches, the VOCs transmitted by the patches and received by
the monoculture induces a growth response relative to tolerating minimal resource availability
and in the development of competitive advantages for resources. Additionally, these
allelochemicals now being transmitted by the monocultures inhibit seed growth of neighboring
competitors thus reducing or eliminating the need for herbicides being used in our simplified
landscapes (Kegge, 2009).
Benefits of diverse landscapes provided by the meta-population patches include
“alternative hosts and prey, alternative sources of pollen and nectar, shelter and overwintering
areas [for pest-predators], interface between crop and seminatural habitats (empirical and
modeling studies have demonstrated that the quality and quantity of seminatural habitat patches
adjacent to the crop may affect top-down control), and effect of landscape context on biological
control” (Rusch, 2010). Introduced, meta-population patches also facilitate species movement
and the maintenance of high genetic diversity. Dramstad defines meta-populations as
“interacting populations subdivided among different patches.” As human development
continues to dissect the landscape, natural environments are fragmented and split into smaller
sub environments. With the development of urban sprawl perpetuating habitat fragmentation
thus affecting dispersal ability, regional persistence of host-parasitoid populations continues to
diminish (Rusch, 2010). These patches of semi-natural habitats like field margins and
hedgerows, sustain large numbers of pest and pest-predator species while fostering lifesupporting functions maintaining those populations with alternative hosts and prey for both pest
and pest-predator species (Rusch, 2010). Having semi-natural habitats either within or adjacent
44 to monocultures also provides pest-predators with resources during periods of low host and
prey species like row crop (Rusch, 2010).
“Low stability, (i.e., high interannual variation) causes unpredictable food shortages,
which impact human health and survival, while threatening farmers’ livelihoods” (Garibaldi,
2011). Having biodiverse patches in close proximity to help protect the simplified landscape
through natural dialogue provides a sense of insurance on the annual yield.
Numerous benefits are incurred with the presence of meta-populations. Through
introducing patches, the induction of these benefits can be prescribed to any constructed or
industrialized landscape. The significance of the impact of meta-populations can be controlled
through the understanding and application of edge and ecotone concepts. The following section
articulates what edges and ecotones are and how they can apply a biomimetic defense through
introduced meta-populations.
ECOLOGICAL STRUCTURE
Edges and ecotones, although closely related, are used to contribute structural form to
this project. Through applying edge and ecotone concepts to neighboring plant communities or
introduced patches in constructed and industrialized landscapes, interdependent relationships
between plant communities can procure through the homogenization of both communities.
Edges
With high landscape fragmentation due to urban sprawl and landscape simplification,
many edges are created between built and natural environments and neighboring natural
45 habitats. Also defined as a border to a habitat by Forman, he describes how edges are frequently
biological cornucopias having high species richness and density for numerous flora and fauna
classes. In agricultural landscapes, forest edges typically having shrubs and small understory
trees growing in high nutrient level soils, plants called ‘nitrophiles’ or ‘phosphotiles’ have rich
foliage and are favored by herbivores (Forman, 1995). Being favored by herbivores, ‘nitrophiles’
or ‘phosphotiles’ may be increasingly mechanically damaged fostering higher VOC emissions.
These “‘nitrophiles’ or ‘phosphotiles’ outcompete many plant species” thus maintaining the
previously created edge (Forman, 1995). Planting introduced patch margins with ‘nitrophiles’ or
‘phosphotiles’ may aid in passive patch management in maintaining edges, thus creating less
work for landscape maintenance.
Edges also play an important role in resource flow within the landscape. Analogous to a
membrane, mimicing the ‘source’ and ‘sink’ concept, if one side of the edge has higher resource
concentrations than the other, those resources will passively diffuse across the edge to
equilibrate over time (Forman, 1995). Furthermore, the shape of an edge significantly influences
the diffusion of nutrients (Dramstad, 1996). Factors like edge abruptness between two habitats,
the level of vertical and horizontal structural vegetation, and fluidity of the edge all contribute to
the diffusion of nutrients, flora, and fauna species across an edge (Dramstad, 1996).
Ecotones
Ecotones, also described as a boundary connecting the borders of habitats, serves as a
distribution zone for nutrients and species diversity (Forman, 1995). Having wider margins with
characteristics of both neighboring habitats, ecotones support higher flora diversity and
subsequent arthropod (pest and pest-predator) diversity (Thomas, 2011). Ecotones may serve as
primary habitats for many species and act as a species refuge and speciation site (Western, 2001).
46 By promoting ecotones in comparison to an edge, higher invertebrate and avian
populations may be present (Thomas, 2011). This is done through the promotion of hedgerow
or leaving field margins uncropped (Thomas, 2011). “Ecotone width is the best predictor of
avian densities and arthropod richness” (Thomas, 2011).
Although an industrial agriculture program has been developed implementing metapopulation concepts and spatially located on-site, edge and ecotone concepts were not
developed. This is due in part to the scope and timeframe of this project. These topics are
considered part of the evolution of the research program and allude to the mentality of future
avenues within this project.
This chapter articulates the mentality behind the evolution of this project. Through
understanding these natural systems used as the inspiration driving this project, concepts
covered in this chapter were used to inform several research programs in addition to the site
design.
CHAPTER 3
CASE STUDIES
Learning about existing sustainable education centers is a key component in
understanding how they successfully engage, communicate, and educate their audience.
Because few sustainable education centers exist and are of quality, identifying these centers,
how they function, and are designed programmatically is crucial to the success of this design.
Although the function of the sustainable education center at the Cooper/Skinner farm is
unique, green infrastructure and educational conveyance techniques will be incorporated
from both the Findhorn Ecovillage and Center for Alternative Technologies. The Findhorn
Ecovillage and Center for Alternative Technologies are exemplar sustainable education
centers identified and reviewed in this study. This chapter presents details about these
sustainable education centers, with a focus on their sustainable infrastructure and programs.
48 FINDHORN ECOVILLAGE
The Findhorn Ecovillage is an excellent precedent for ecologically viable and sustainable
living education. The Ecovillage (Figures 1 - 2) was established in Scotland in 1985 in
collaboration with the Findhorn Foundation. The Ecovillage’s mission is a “spiritual
community, ecovillage and an international center for holistic learning, helping to unfold a new
human consciousness and create a positive and sustainable future” (www.findhorn.org).
Figure 1: Findhorn Ecovillage Context Map
Figure 2: Findhorn Ecovillage Map
49 The Ecovillage incorporates a multitude of sustainable technologies used to either
recycle or reuse materials and wastes or gather energy from renewable sources for energy
generation. These sustainable technologies, used for daily living and educational purposes
(Figures 3 – 4), include photovoltaic panels, a living machine for wastewater reclamation, and
ecologically benign building materials and
construction strategies. Local organic food
production and other renewable energy
systems are also incorporated in day-to-day
living.
Figure 3: Findhorn Ecovillage: Sustainable Housing
Figure 4: Findhorn Ecovillage: Living machine
50 Beyond the use of these technologies, programs (figure 5) are offered to educate people
about such sustainable technologies and how they are integrated into natural systems while
supporting human functions. Personal, social, economic, and ecological sustainability programs
are also offered in collaboration with these sustainable technologies educating a holistically
sustainable lifestyle. Moreover, educational programs at the Ecovillage are designed to foster the
transition of human lifestyles into a sustainable future through a variety of planetary assessments
and various scale location-based solutions. These educational programs are executed through
many outreach programs, accredited semester-long collegiate level courses, conferences, and
consultancy services. Much of the education is contrived through experiential learning.
Figure 5: Findhorn Ecovillage: Educational Programming
Findhorn Foundation sustainability programs and conferences work in tandem with the
United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development program (2005 - 2014). The
Decade program prepares people to have better decision-making skills regarding sustainable
living both now and in the future. Other educational organizations working under The Decade
program that are incorporated into the Findhorn Ecovillage business community are Gaia
Education and Trees of Life. Although these organizations differ in primary objectives, both
51 promote ecologically sound approaches to sustainable development and land integration. Gaia
Education is focused on developing curricula for sustainable community design while Trees of
Life focuses on land assessment and site regeneration. Beyond collaborative efforts with
ecovillages like Findhorn, these organizations work in partnership with government and
nongovernment agencies, universities, and the United Nations.
Using its campus as a teaching resource, the Findhorn Ecovillage acts as a networking
hub for sustainability programs and organizations like Gaia Education and Trees of Life. The
Findhorn Ecovillage is an educational resource and is an asset for communities, organizations,
and municipalities worldwide.
In review, the Findhorn Ecovillage informs the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education
Center through its ecologically sound approach underlying sustainable living concepts. By
mimicing the education and outreach programs in addition to the Ecovillage’s green
infrastructure used for daily living, the Cooper/Skinner Center has a template embodying
sustainable living.
CENTRE FOR ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
The Centre for Alternative Technologies located in Machynlleth, Wales, is an
outstanding example of an educational and visitor sustainable education center. The Centre for
Alternative Technologies or CAT (Figures 6-7), educates an array of people ranging from
elementary to university students, teachers, architects, engineers, builders, plumbers, and
electricians and offers numerous day-long and post-graduate degree courses. CAT’s mission
strives to “search for globally sustainable, whole and ecologically sound technologies and ways
of life” that can inspire, inform, and enable people to live sustainable lifestyles
(www.cat.org.uk/).
52 Figure 6: Centre for Alternative Technologies Context Map Figure 7: Centre for Alternative Technologies Map To execute this mission, the Centre demonstrates numerous interactive displays on seven
acres ranging from environmental building materials and strategies (Figure 8), eco-sanitation
techniques, woodland management strategies, and renewable energy harvesting and energy
efficiency methods (Figure 9).
53 Figure 8: Centre for Alternative Technologies: Sustainable Construction
Figure 9: Centre for Alternative Technologies: Sustainable Materials
Considering its demonstration area of seven acres to be a living laboratory (shown in
Figure 10), the property hosts numerous renewable systems solutions. These solutions include
energy harvesting and application technologies like photovoltaics, solar thermal systems,
biomass combined heat and power systems (CHP), air source heat pumps, and wind turbines.
Furthermore, system solutions like hydropower, reed bed systems, off-main water supply, and
organic gardens give provision to both the site and its users.
54 Figure 10: Centre for Alternative Technologies: Educational Programming
During daily functions, the Centre provides outreach and informational service programs
helping people to better understand and become involved with sustainable topics and solutions.
The Centre also hosts residential education programs to students and their instructors during
curriculum-based educational visits. Aiding in the execution of daily functions, a number of
volunteers interested in learning about sustainable living help run an eco-shop, vegetarian
restaurant, vegetarian café, and whole food shop on-site.
By incorporating the numerous sustainable technologies and educational/outreach
programs into their daily functions, the Centre for Alternative Technologies has become a global
success. This success is due to the high level of engagement found in all audiences experiencing
CAT. This universal audience engagement can be attributed to CAT being designed as a
laboratory with all levels of its programming and function being fully transparent. With all levels
of the Centre involving the audience, information regarding sustainable lifestyle strategies is
accessible to all.
55 Identifying successful exemplars for sustainable education centers and reviewing their
programs of on-site technologies and educational outreach is central to this project. By
incorporating programmatic elements and strategies identified through these case studies the
sustainable education center at the Cooper/Skinner farm may be comparable in its success to
that of the case studies reviewed.
In evaluation, the Centre for Alternative Technologies is most comparable in its daily
functions and programming to that of the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center.
Similar to the Centre for Alternative Technologies, the Cooper/Skinner Center is intended to
host daily educational programs for visitors and classes, provide sustainability consultancy and
demonstrate various harvesting techniques from renewable energy, food production, and water
reclamation sources throughout the property designed as a living laboratory. Like both the
Findhorn Ecovillage and Centre for Alternative Technologies, the Cooper/Skinner Center is
intended to have an expansive campus exhibiting how sustainable technologies can interface
with modern lifestyles and provide services for daily human needs. These include food, water,
and energy production, wastewater reclamation, and structural materials.
Unlike the case studies reviewed, the proposed Cooper/Skinner Center provides space
for, and is focused on, performing new and innovative research regarding cross-talk and its
relationship to landscape simplification. Other precedents, as well, do not focus on cross-talk.
However, the closest comparable demonstration of this project in using natural systems within
design to become self-sustaining is that of the whole-system natural predation project from the
Centre for Alternative Technologies. This project, specifically, is comparable to only one aspect
of the Cooper/Skinner Center and its designed cross-talk research programs. Research
conducted by the proposed Cooper/Skinner Center regarding cross-talk and its relationship to
landscape simplifications would be done in tandem with the demonstration of its application at
56 various landscape scales. Beyond research, the Cooper/Skinner Center would also provide
consultation to research, design, and policy-making institutions.
Through integrating programmatic strategies like educational workshops, outreach
programs, collaborative projects with other sustainable organizations, and innovative research,
the Cooper/Skinner Center may successfully engage and educate its audience on promoting a
more sustainable and viable future.
CHAPTER 4
SITE INVENTORY
The site selected for the Sustainable Education Center, i.e., the Cooper and Skinner
farm, is a diverse, semi-natural environment. It is a 146-acre Ball State University owned
property located 4.15 miles NE of Muncie, Indiana. Being one of five university owned
properties, the Cooper/Skinner Farm hosts numerous field trips taken by Ball State students,
and research experiments conducted by university faculty. The university owns the property,
however, it is open to the public for events like prescribed prairie burns.
58 Figure 11 illustrates the location of the Cooper/Skinner Farm in relation to the City of
Muncie.
Figure 11: Context Map
Knowing the site and its potential was a key component in selecting the site. The farm
has numerous soil types, hydrology types, varying but minimal topography change, and several
vegetative communities (including row crops). The various natural system typologies offer
numerous opportunities for VOC research. The property is also adequately expansive to host
the proposed Cooper/Skinner Center and its ancillary space requirements. In addition, its
proximity to the city and its prior uses encourage integration of the Cooper/Skinner Center into
the Muncie community.
59 SITE HISTORY
The property, previously owned by the Cooper and Skinner families, was donated to the
University to be used for educational purposes. The majority of the land was previously used
for row crop production while patches of woodland remained in proximity to the drainage ditch
dissecting the two properties. The drainage flows westbound and then turning northward, runs
horizontally through the heart of the 146-acre Cooper/Skinner property. The following images,
Figures 12 and 13, illustrate the ditch dissecting the property.
Figure 12: Channelized ditch flowing through the property 60 Figure 13: Channelized ditch flowing through the property It is apparent that the ditch had been modified over time, or the primary purpose of removing
water from surrounding agricultural land. This ditch now has relatively steep banks with
minimal plant diversity along its edge.
Two subdivisions erected in close proximity to the Cooper/Skinner property (one on the
east side and one on the west side), both drain their surface waters into the drainage ditch
flowing through the property. This runoff water collects trash, fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides used by the adjacent subdivisions and flows through the site with no form of
treatment. Prior to the development of the neighboring subdivisions, the land surrounding the
61 Cooper/Skinner property was primarily industrialized agricultural land. With much of the
surrounding land still in agricultural use today, non-renewable inputs applied to the land leech
synthetic chemicals from the soil and add to the already degraded water quality of the surface
water discharged by the subdivisions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The property is considered a semi-natural environment through having both undisturbed
and restored vegetation communities with virtually no development (other than row crop) onsite. Some portions of the property have been allowed to revert to their historic land typologies
while other portions have been restored as prairies. With the majority of the site being allowed
to revert to its prior vegetative state, the site holds several woodland communities ranging from
successional to woody successional to riparian woodland and mature woodland. The restored
prairie on the Cooper/Skinner site, all of which is considered natural was installed in segments
ranging from three to eight years ago. Figures 14 and 15 depict existing conditions on-site,
specifically the successional and prairie vegetation communities. These vegetative communities
coupled with row crop provide the Cooper/Skinner property with a wide mix of plant
typologies being found in one location.
62 Figure 14: Successional Vegetation Figure 15: Restored prairie (early Spring)
West Bethel Avenue/Highway 249 N borders the south side of the site with subdivisions
(as stated above) located on the west and east sides. Agricultural plots are found intermittent to
the subdivisions bordering the Cooper/Skinner property. A single-family residence (figure 16)
and straw bale demonstration house (single-room) (figure 17) are located at the southern border
of the property and have access to Bethel Avenue.
63 Figure 16: Single-­‐family home located at Southern property border
Figure 17: Demonstration house at Southern border of property
64 A single-lane gravel road running along the eastern edge of the property, acts as the primary
vehicular route of access to the northern half of the site. Numerous trailheads (dirt roads) run
throughout the southern half of the site and are designed as burn breaks when bordering the
restored prairies. Figures 18, 19 and 20 show existing circulation conditions throughout the
property.
Figure 18: Gravel road accessing Northern half of property
65 Figure 19: Trailhead running through the property
Figure 20: Trailhead running through the property acting as a burn break
66 Managing the site for approximately thirteen years, John Taylor has removed countless
invasive plant species from the property, installed and managed the prairies, and hosts numerous
visits of Ball State students and faculty to the property. Knowing that the land has been
managed for years was crucial to the selection of this site for the creative project. Having littleto-no invasive plant species on-site was also important providing the “living community”
conditions needed to obtain scientific data regarding native cross-talk.
MAPS
The following pages contain a series of context and inventory maps. These maps
(figures 21-33) identify crucial site information such as the property boundaries, roads, soils,
vegetation types, water characteristics, and flora potentials. From these, a site inventory was
produced to indicate the sites key existing conditions and surrounding context. Using this data,
a site analysis was conducted to help inform the design itself. Although all of the following
maps informed the design, layering the vegetation types, soil types and composition, and
topography within property boundaries, was key in developing site analysis, programming, and
design. The hydric soils and vegetation types were used in mapping out the research
programming and site design. The soil composition and slope maps informed the location of
the waterborne program and built infrastructure while the vegetation potentials informed the
locations of the programming and plant palette/communities used in the campus design.
67 Cooper/Skinner: Vegetation Community
Legend
Patten
McArthur
Property Boundary
Roads_INDOT
Drainage Flow
Contours 5ft
Contours 2ft
Vegetation Community Boundaries
type
Mature woods
Prairie
Bet
Nebo
Riparian woods
hel
Row crop
Successional
Wetland
Woody successional
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
¯
Wet prairie
Benton
Turf
Figure 21: Cooper/Skinner Vegetation Communities
68 McArthur
¯
Legend
Property Boundary
Nebo
Patten
Cooper/Skinner: Hydric Soils
Bet
hel
Roads_INDOT
Drainage Flow
Contours 5ft
Hydric Soils
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
Vegetation Community Boundaries
Benton
Contours 2ft
Figure 22 Cooper/Skinner: Hydric Soils
69 Cooper/Skinner:
Vegetation Communities & Hydric Soils
Legend
Patten
McArthur
Property Boundary
Roads_INDOT
Drainage Flow
Contours 5ft
Contours 2ft
Hydric Soils
Vegetation Community Boundaries
type
Mature woods
Prairie
Bet
Nebo
Riparian woods
hel
Row crop
Successional
Wetland
Woody successional
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
¯
Wet prairie
Benton
Turf
Figure 23: Cooper/Skinner: Vegetation Communities & Hydric Soils
70 McArthur
Patten
Cooper/Skinner: Soil Composition
Legend
Property Boundary
Roads_INDOT
Drainage Flow
Contours 5ft
Contours 2ft
Soil Composition
Bet
Nebo
<all other values>
hel
SURFTEX_C
L
SICL
SIL
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
¯
MUCK
Benton
MK-SIC
Figure 24: Cooper/Skinner: Soil Composition
71 McArthur
Patten
Cooper/Skinner: Wetland Potential
Legend
Property Boundary
Roads_INDOT
Bet
Nebo
Drainage Flow
hel
Contours 5ft
Contours 2ft
GOOD
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
¯
<all other values>
WH_WETLAND
Benton
Wetland Potential
Figure 25: Cooper/Skinner: Grass Potential
72 McArthur
Patten
Cooper/Skinner: Grass & Legume Potential
Legend
Property Boundary
Roads_INDOT
Drainage Flow
Contours 5ft
Bet
Nebo
Contours 2ft
hel
Soil Potentials
<all other values>
FAIR
POOR
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
¯
GOOD
Benton
WH_GRS_LEG
Figure 26 Cooper/Skinner: Wetland Potential
73 McArthur
Patten
Cooper/Skinner: Herbaceous Potential
Legend
Property Boundary
Roads_INDOT
Drainage Flow
Contours 5ft
Bet
Nebo
Contours 2ft
hel
Soil Potentials
<all other values>
FAIR
POOR
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
¯
GOOD
Benton
WH_HERBAC
Figure 27 Cooper/Skinner: Herbaceous Potential
74 McArthur
Patten
Cooper/Skinner: Woodland Potential
Legend
Property Boundary
Roads_INDOT
Drainage Flow
Contours 5ft
Bet
Nebo
Contours 2ft
hel
DC Soil Potentials
<all other values>
FAIR
POOR
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
¯
GOOD
Benton
WH_WDLND
Figure 28 Cooper/Skinner: Woodland Potential
75 Cooper/Skinner:
Vegetation Community & Slope %
Legend
Property Boundary
Roads_INDOT
Drainage Flow
Contours 5ft
Contours 2ft
Vegetation Community Boundaries
McArthur
Mature woods
Patten
type
Prairie
Riparian woods
Row crop
Successional
Turf
Wet prairie
Wetland
Woody successional
DC Soil Potentials
Bet
Nebo
<all other values>
hel
SLOPE(%)
0 to 0
2 to 6
5 to 10
500
750
Feet
1,000
ge
125 250
illa
0
V
ter
inis
stim
We
¯
1 to 4
Benton
0 to 1
Figure 29 Cooper/Skinner: Vegetation Communities & Slope %
76 Figure 30 Inventories: Layered
77 Figure 31 Inventory: Hydrology
78 Figure 32 Inventory: Surrounding Context
79 Figure 33 Inventory: Adequate Complexity Threshold
CHAPTER 5
SITE ANALYSIS & RESEARCH PROGRAMMING
The purpose of the site analysis and programming conducted on the
Cooper/Skinner property was to determine the opportunities and constraints afforded by
the site to accommodate programmatic elements and infrastructural development. In doing
so, the best locations suited for executing cross-talk research and infrastructural
development may be determined. Site analysis was also used to determine the placement of
buildings and greenhouses, outdoor classrooms, vehicular, pedestrian and wastewater
circulation, observation decks, and an outdoor kitchen. The site itself, having multiple soil
types and compositions,
81 vegetative communities, drainage and sub-drainage units, and hydrology typologies, provides the
VOC programming with a multitude of research opportunities. Although many research
opportunities have been identified through the natural systems complexities found on-site, only
a select portion of these have been programmatically included in this project, with others
providing opportunities for future research and study. For these research opportunities
identified for this project, several examples regarding how pilot VOC research experiments may
be conducted are articulated within this chapter.
ANALYSIS
Through conducting a conventional style of analysis, appropriate building locations, site
entry locations, opportunities for the circulation (for water, people, vehicles, etc.), areas
susceptible to degradation, and preferred relationships to surrounding context were identified.
This is followed by an additional non-traditional analysis regarding opportunities for cross-talk
research, areas best suited for control sampling, diversification studies (little-to-no species
diversity) and simplification studies (high species diversity) is conducted. These areas require
specific combinations of soil types, vegetation types, and drainage unit boundaries and
directional flow. Identifying the locations of these unique system typology combinations is
necessary in designing research that, over time, can provide the wide breadth of cross-talk
knowledge needed to promote healthy systems and landscape regeneration. It is intended that
these identified locations can host countless types of VOC research regarding airborne,
waterborne, root and leaf emission, VOC densities and effective range, and species diversity
gradients.
82 By identifying the row crop and mature vegetative communities for VOC research, the
successional vegetation community was targeted as the built infrastructure zone. This is due to
the successional vegetation community being in a transitioning stage of its life. VOC sampling
research requires little-to-no species diversity and high, mature species diversity found elsewhere
on-site.
Infrastructure location is influenced by the locations of successional vegetation. The
successional vegetation community is targeted due to being in its transitional phase of life. This
project seeks to understand adequate complexity levels needed by studying the two most
extreme ends of the vegetative spectrum.
Figure 34 illustrates the location of the various programs conducted on-site and the area
selected for the built infrastructure.
83 Figure 34: Infrastructure Location & Site Programming
84 PROGRAMMING GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The following goals and objectives describe the mentality behind designing the
Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center. The goals and objectives articulate the intent of
the Cooper/Skinner Center design, obtainment of cross-talk knowledge, and the use of natural
processes and sustainable practices for this project.
1 Design a Sustainable Education Center
1.1 Provide facilities for educating the public on topics addressing synergies, the role of
synergies in performing efficiency and system regeneration; and the role of
communication in facilitating these synergies
1.1.1 Provide facilities for educating the public on the capacity of plants to
communicate with one another (i.e. cross-talk), how this communication can
promote beneficial synergy, how research can be conducted to advance
knowledge of cross-talk/synergy relationships at the site scale, and how the
opportunity to conduct this research is incorporated throughout the site design
1.2 Design exhibits to be used for educational purposes and comparative research
studies
1.2.1 Design exhibits used to highlight the capacity of plants to communicate
through cross-talk
2 Design the site to maximize learning about the highest capacity of cross-talk possible within
specific site conditions and in ways that identify cross-talk threshold
85 2.1 Design the Center to maximize cross-talk potentials by taking advantage of the high
levels of biodiversity available throughout the site
2.1.1 Establish diverse vegetative communities to facilitate cross-talk
2.1.1.1 Program each plant community to include a minimum of 25
species to be used in each plant community
2.2 Maximize cross-talk through maintaining close proximity of plants to one another
and their needed resources
2.2.1 Locate plant communities adjacent to one another and/or needed resources
2.2.2 Create soft edges between adjacent plant communities (plant communities
overlap at all times throughout the site to maintain high levels of cross-talk
through diverse environments)
2.3 Design “test” plots to compare against a “standard” plot
2.3.1 Vary parameters like plant diversity and proximity to one another and/or
resources
3 Reduce Water Footprint
3.1 Use captured water on-site to promote high levels of cross-talk; research the affects
this has on water consumption
3.1.1 Open-surface water to be used throughout site to promote high cross-talk
levels; VOC emission and evapotranspiration levels are studied analyzing the
86 relationship of water with cross-talk levels. VOC emission and
evapotranspiration levels may be positively correlated
3.2 Utilize cross-talk principles to influence design and diminish volumetric needs of
water
3.2.1 Provide plants with close proximity to water to promote high levels of
cross-talk; VOC emission and evapotranspiration levels are studied analyzing the
relationship of water with cross-talk levels. VOC emission and
evapotranspiration levels may be positively correlated
4 Provide high quality habitats for both flora and fauna
4.1 Design for high levels of biodiversity, promoting high species numbers of flora and
fauna species
4.1.1 Utilize native species
4.1.1.1 Use species native to Indiana or the Mid-Western region; develop
cross-talk abilities related to regional conditions
4.2 Use all parts of the forest (canopy, understory, ground plane and substrate) to
provide habitat since different flora and fauna inhabit different areas and all are part of
the system for cross-talk.
4.3 Leave all shed plant material (fallen leaves, reproductive products and byproducts,
and limbs) to intended ecosystem service of decomposition and
site fertilization
87 5 Employ natural succession principles to promote flora health and productivity
5.1 Allow plants to self-fertilize, reducing the need for non-renewable inputs; the
reduced need for fertilizers is another indicator that cross-talk is enhancing system
performance and thereby reducing the need for pesticides and fertilizers
5.1.1 Allow all shed plant material to naturally decompose enriching the soil;
added organic material increases nutrients found in soil, allows soil to hold more
water, and provides food and habitat to bacteria and macroinvertebrates
5.2 Planting design to mimic natural step-wise growth and aging; varied growth rates and
plant ages fosters a cyclical life/death cycle. As plants die and decompose, microbial
bacteria aiding in decomposition emit high levels of VOCs fostering a diverse cross-talk
dialogue
5.2.1 Establish canopy, understory, and groundcover communities
5.3 Introduce microbial bacteria into site to mimic natural step-wise site succession; the
introduction of bacteria fosters the participation and acceleration of cross-talk
5.3.1 Allow bacteria to naturally introduce themselves back to the site
5.3.1.1 “Mulch” the removed plant material from site construction and
distribute it across the site, allow site to sit for one week undisturbed to
allow bacteria populations to repopulate the site
5.3.2 “Seed” the site with microbial bacteria specific to the original site
community
88 5.3.2.1 Harvest soil plugs, created through aerating soil, found in similar
site conditions to the constructed sites original conditions and apply to
the site through slurry
6 Partner meta-population theory principles within site
6.1 Create a food source for agricultural crop pests and grazers so as to improve crop
yield
6.1.1 Provide crop pests and grazers with an alternative habitat to reduce row
crop damage and foster conservation biological control concepts
(ie woody landscape)
6.1.1.1 Establish a diverse habitat (canopy, understory, and groundcover
communities) to host a wide variety of predatory arthropods used in
conservation biological control concepts
6.2 Reduce non-renewable inputs
6.2.1 Optimize the inclusion of biodiverse “pockets” that can increase the VOCs
emitted and the valuable information communicated by cross-talk that can
improve plant health and productivity
6.2.2 Leave shed plant material to naturally decompose and self-fertilize; added
organic material increases nutrients found in soil, allows soil to hold more water,
and provides food and habitat to bacteria and macroinvertebrates
89 6.3 Maintain monoculture aesthetics
6.3.1 Provide biodiverse “pockets” located within the row crop versus plants
distributed evenly throughout the row crop; prescribed acupuncture of
biodiversity into monocultures having desired aesthetics.
6.4 Improve plant vigor through VOC exposure; allows plants to respond to
herbivorous infestations accurately and efficiently
6.4.1 Provide biodiverse “pockets” to improve VOCs emission and exposure to
row crop providing valuable information and improving plant health and
productivity
7 Influence behavioral change
7.1 Design the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center as an “Emergent Learning
Center” to provide hands-on, experiential learning aiding in the regeneration and transfer
of knowledge in future experiences
7.1.1 Develop interactive elements throughout the site to support hands-on,
experiential learning
PROGRAM
The Cooper/Skinner Center is herein designed to facilitate numerous research
experiments in both interior and exterior conditions. The purpose of these experiments is to
further our knowledge of cross-talk and develop systems to employ this expanded knowledge.
Experiments conducted in the laboratory of the Center study items like herbivory degradation,
90 non-renewable input application, and water and canopy presence to plants in relationship to
VOC emission. Laboratory experiments can be conducted easier, faster and in more reliable
manners; and knowledge gained through these experiments can be applied and monitored onsite. The project includes the locating of portable field stations at key locations throughout the
site to record VOC emission data in relationship to changing weather conditions while VOC
sampling is recorded in control and experimental zones.
Interior Research Programming
Researchers employed by the Cooper/Skinner Center execute laboratory experiments
and tests are conducted in the lab located on the basement level of the Center and Center’s
Greenhouse. Portions of the lab and greenhouse are open to the public for educational
purposes while others portions have controlled access for quality assurance. The following
outline, intended for pilot experiments, has been developed for the “Community Ecology
Experiments” testing VOC emissions. This outline describes the series of experiments, their
variables, and assumed outcomes.
Community Ecology Experiments
A genetically modified plant that does not produce VOCs must first be developed. This
non-emitting plant is then used as the control compared against each experiment. Experiments
are conducted in succession to test each variable independently and are as follows:
Successional Testing (in laboratory setting)
1) Proximity (monoculture)
- using a monoculture, vary the spacing and density of the plants
91 2) Biodiversity
- using several plant species, maintain plant proximity while varying plant species
3) Proximity (diversity)
- using several plant species, maintain species diversity while varying spacing and density
The following experiments may be conducted independently:
4) Canopy Presence
- introduce a canopy; vary types of canopies introduced and length of time present
(with lengthened canopy presence, VOC emission recorded is expected to decrease due
to reduced evapotranspiration values)
5) Plant Degradation
-introduce herbivores; vary types of herbivores introduced and length of time present
(with lengthened herbivore degradation, VOC emission recorded is expected to increase
due to elevated stress levels)
6) Water Reclamation
-introduce degraded water quality; vary types of degraded water introduced and length of
time present(with lengthened polluted water quality degradation, VOC emission
recorded is expected to increase due to elevated stress levels)
7) Water Presence
-introduce water; vary volume and length of time present
(with lengthened water presence, VOC emission recorded is unknown due to varying
stress levels and/or varying evapotranspiration values; evaluate hydrophilic or
hydrophobic capabilities of plant species)
92 8) Non-renewable Input Application
-introduce non-renewable inputs; vary types of inputs, strengths of inputs, and length of
time present
Measurements: Measurements are conducted regarding biomass variation, evapotranspiration
values, density and volume of VOCs, diversity of VOCs, and soil moisture levels. The
measurements are recorded and evaluated across numerous studies.
Note: Provide uniform water volume to plants until desired size and health is met. Once desired
size and health of plant species are met, factors regarding experiments may begin.
Assumptions
The following assumptions (used by individuals conducting cross-talk research at the
Cooper/Skinner Center) provide the context in which the research is developed and through its
execution, the Center will contribute to advancing knowledge about cross-talk. These
assumptions are initially made and may be adapted over time as research advances the
understanding of cross-talk.
•
Older plants produce more VOCs
•
Volume of VOCs emitted is positively correlated to plant size
•
Less happy plants produce more VOCs
•
Diverse plant communities will produce diverse VOCs
•
Diverse bacteria communities will produce diverse VOCs
•
The higher the density and volume of VOCs, the longer the VOCs are atmospherically
present
93 Exterior Research Programming
To be better able to research and improve the understanding of unique system
relationships and their role in VOC emission, numerous combinations regarding water, soil, and
plant typologies were identified. Studying these unique combinations, over time at the Center,
will provide base information regarding VOC emission in each respective natural system setting.
At the beginning of research program implementation, samples will be conducted here as base
records and will be used as the control for the five experimental programs. Although these
control combinations can be found in many locations throughout the site, sampling locations are
identified (Figure 36) for outside experimental research zones. Control samples are to be
conducted frequently and throughout the year.
A matrix, (Figure 35) developed from a Punnett Square, is used to determine the
numerous research opportunities on-site regarding water, soil, and vegetation typologies.
Although typically used by geneticists studying allele combinations for subsequent generations
and their relative probability, the Punnett Square developed in this project is simply used for
determining the combinations of VOC experiments possible within the respective natural system
typologies. This Punnett Square has no bearing on probability in this project.
94 Soil Types
Sub-surface Tile Drainage
Open-surface Drainage
Pewano
Mature Woodlot
MaG
MaBl
MaP
MaM MaBe MaOp MaSs
Woody Successional
WoG WoBl
WoP
WoM WoBe WoOp WoSs
Successional
SuG
SuBl
SuP
SuM
SuBe
SuOp SuSs
Riparian Woodlot
RiG
RiBl
RiP
RiM
RiBe
RiOp
Row Crop
RcG
RcBl
RcP
RcM
RcBe
RcOp RcSs
Old Prairie
OlG
OlBl
OlP
OlM
OlBe
OlOp OlSs
New Prairie
NeG
NeBl
NeP
NeM
NeBe NeOp NeSs
Turf
TuG
TuBl
TuP
TuM
TuBe TuOp TuSs
Open-surface Drainage
OpG OpBl
OpP
OpM OpBe
Sub-surface Tile Drainage
SuG1 SuBl1 SuP1 SuM
Mississini
Blount
Beechwood
Water
Glynwood
Water
Plant Types
Baseline Sampling Punnett Square
RiSs
SuBe
Figure 35: Baseline Sampling Punnett Square
Items identified in black are sampling combinations found on-site and able to be
sampled. All non-black items are not found within the Cooper/Skinner property and therefore,
in order to complete all of the sampling combinations possible, may be sampled on one of the
other five semi-natural properties owned by Ball State University. System combinations have
been coded and labeled throughout the property.
95 Figure 36: Adequate Complexity VOC Sampling Control
96 In this creative project, five different types of exterior experimental research
programming have been identified and spatially located on-site. These locations were informed,
selected and scaled, thorough the non-traditional site analysis and scaled accordingly. The five
types of exterior VOC research experiments study include experiments related to 1) the effective
VOC range through transported microbial bacteria, 2) the amount of water quality reclamation
in relationship to VOC presence, 3) the cross-talk implication of introducing species rich patches
of vegetation into to an industrial agricultural setting, 4) determining adequate complexity of
species diversity fostering cross-talk through species diversification and VOC presence and 5)
determining adequate complexity of species diversity fostering cross-talk through species
reduction and VOC presence.
Sampling transects for recording VOC data is prescribed for all five types of exterior
experimental research programming. Sampling conducted on these transects spans the diameter
of the research area and runs perpendicular to the direction of drainage flow. This is due to the
experimental programs being designed around drainage flows. Within the diversification and
simplification species gradient programs, sampling transects are conducted following drainage
flow however, some gradients increase in diversity as water flows downhill while other decrease
in diversity as water flows downhill. This is done to expand VOC knowledge in varying contexts
and used as compliment samplings to compare with one another. Although the distance
between the samples may vary between experiment types, all programs except the waterborne
program, will record airborne and rootborne VOC emission. Transect sampling regarding the
waterborne program only records samples via waterborne VOC emission.
The following section describes the research programs in greater detail and items
considered in the development of each program.
97 1) Waterborne Program (see Figure 34 for location on-site)
•
Purpose of program: Study effective VOC range through transported microbial bacteria;
the reach of beneficial VOCs affecting plant health and productivity may be influenced
o What the program studies: Studies the presence and effective range of VOC
emitting microbial bacteria upon transplant; analyzes soil type, its porosity and
permeability, the ability of microbial bacteria to adsorb to different soil types and
their transportation during erosion and sedimentation events
§
System considerations to the program: Considers soils types, microbial
bacteria types, and drainage units; patches of vegetation are located at
highpoints of surface topography and in adjacent drainage units
•
How the program is conducted: Sampling transect are placed
perpendicular to changing topography; samples recording VOC
presence, volume, and diversity are taken at six-inch intervals for
both airborne and waterborne VOCs
2) Water Reclamation Program (see Figure 34 for location on-site)
•
Purpose of program: Study VOC emission and in relationship to the presence of poor
water quality; knowing plants emit more VOCs when they are unhappy (knowledge
obtained through literature review), water reclamation regimes may be developed
according to cross-talk levels and presence
o What the program studies: Studies the presence, volume, and diversity of VOCs
when subjected to degraded water quality; analyzes initial water quality, its
reclamation over time, and the health and productivity of plants found in
98 degraded water quality and the relationship of VOC emission to the longevity of
the presence of poor water quality
§
System considerations to the program: Considers fluctuations in water
levels due to storm events and assumes flooding events to contain
increasingly polluted water; small detention ponds are placed downstream
of subdivisions and industrial agriculture and parallel to an already
degraded stream
•
How the program is conducted: Sampling transects span the
diameter of the detention ponds; samples recording VOC
presence, volume, and diversity are taken at one-foot intervals
3) Industrial Agricultural Program (see Figure 37 and Figure 34 for location on-site)
•
Purpose of program: Study VOC emission and its application to industrialized
landscapes; the need for non-renewable inputs in industrialized agricultural settings may
be reduced or eliminated
o What the program studies: Studies the presence and effective range of airborne
and waterborne VOCs; analyzes the health and productivity of agricultural
species in relationship to the proximity of VOC emitting patches
§
System considerations to the program: Considers wind direction, surface
topography, and sheet drainage flows; introduced patches of vegetation
are placed West of the agricultural plots and at highpoints of surface
topography
•
How the program is conducted: Sampling transect are placed
perpendicular to changing topography; samples recording VOC
99 presence, volume, and diversity are taken at one-foot intervals for
both airborne and waterborne VOCs
Figure 37: Cross-­‐talk Row Crop
This program facilitates the “maximization” mentality of agriculture while addressing the
many issues this practice generates. Understanding the occurrence of landscape fragmentation
due to continual human development and designing within these parameters is essential in
developing this new approach to simplified landscapes. Integrating natural design strategies of
species movement and communication are at the heart of this design approach.
This design proposes a series of introduced patches incorporated into the human-created
monoculture that provides valuable information, fertilizes, pollinates, and protects the
monoculture. These introduced patches will extend the benefits of cross-talk found within the
100 surrounding vegetative environments into the monocultural dead zone. These patches will have
rapid colonization of species and diversity from the surrounding vegetative environments that
may then provide beneficial cross-talk for the monoculture.
The meta-populations of introduced patches provide habitat for diverse microbial
bacteria, macroinvertebrate, flora, and fauna communities. This ecology provides many
ecosystem functions that do not exist within simplified monocultures. Having these patches act
as islands allows natural ecosystem services to occur within the monocultural dead zone.
The introduced patches are located at the crests of small berms with respective retention
ponds located downhill with minimal grade change (no more than 5 percent grade change). The
patches are evenly placed throughout the site to allow airborne VOC emission to all row crops.
Row crops are planted between the patches and retention ponds with grass buffer strips wrap
around the retention pond edge. Water from the retention ponds is used for irrigation purposes
during summer months. It is piped up to the patch and irrigates the patch creating sheet flow
across the ground surface and into the surrounding row crop.
The purpose of this is to capitalize on the naturally occurring event of run-off and have
microbial bacteria, adsorbed to soil particles, carried out into the surrounding row crop area.
VOC emitting microbial bacteria extend the range of information from the patch beyond the
range of airborne VOCs emitting plants within the patch. They can do so by travelling on soil
particles and acting as waterborne VOCs. Excess water is filtered through the grass buffer strip,
recollected into the retention pond, and recycled for future needs. The soil carried into the row
crop is rich with organic material from naturally-shed plant material within the patch and acts as
fertilizer to the crop.
101 Developing the quality of the soil in this way is passive and does not require any human
intervention with fossil fuel and petroleum energy needs. This design also removes the needs of
fertilizer application and improves the soil quality overtime. Although the need for irrigation is
minimal, here in the Midwest, this design strategy conserves surface water therefore reducing the
need for groundwater pumping fostering aquifer depletion. This design approach is selfsustaining through providing ecosystems functions, self-cleansing of water, and self-fertilizing
benefits while elevating the fitness of the monoculture.
4) Adequate Complexity through Species Diversification Program (see Figures 38-39 and Figure
34 for location on-site)
•
Purpose of program: Study VOC emission and its relationship to increasing species
diversity; establishes a minimum number of species required for cross-talking, increases
understanding of cross-talk in self-sustaining plant communities
o What the program studies: Studies the presence of VOCs in relationship to
increasing species diversity; analyzes and identifies the threshold of VOC
emission (where VOC emission increases exponentially)
§
System considerations to the program: Defines industrialized landscapes
to be sterile environments and considers soil types, drainage units, and
surface drainage flows; two types of diversification gradient plots are
located in the Northern agricultural plot including 1) plots that increase
in species diversity with the flow of surface water and 2) plots that
increase in species diversity against the flow of surface water
•
How the program is conducted: Sampling transects are placed
perpendicular to changing topography; samples recording VOC
102 presence, volume, and diversity are taken at one-foot intervals for
both airborne, waterborne, and rootborne VOCs
Areas selected for pilot diversification research consider row crop vegetation (being
devoid of species diversity), soil types, drainage units, and uniform drainage flow. Areas
identified illustrate each soil type found in the row crop area and the location best suited for
sampling transects. These identified areas (reflecting soil types) are placed at the top of drainage
units when possible (having no land with encompassed drainage upstream) safeguarding accurate
sampling results.
Figure 38: Diversification Gradient Section: Row Crop 103 Figure 39: Diversification Sampling Proposed Programming
104 5) Adequate complexity through Species Simplification Program (see Figure 40-44 and Figure 34
for location on-site)
•
Purpose of program: Study VOC emission and its relationship to decreasing species
diversity; develops information about the minimum number of species required for
cross-talking, increase understanding of cross-talk in self-sustaining plant communities
o What the program studies: Studies the presence of VOCs in relationship to
decreasing species diversity; analyzes and identifies the threshold of VOC
emission (where VOC emission decreases exponentially)
§
System considerations to the program: Defines mature, established
landscapes to be diverse environments and considers soil types, drainage
units, surface drainage flows, and plant typologies; simplification gradient
plots are located in the mature woodland and prairie and decrease in
species diversity with the flow of surface water or decrease in species
diversity against the flow of surface water
•
How the program is conducted: Sampling transect are placed
perpendicular to changing topography; samples recording VOC
presence, volume, and diversity are taken at one-foot intervals for
both airborne, waterborne, and rootborne VOCs
105 Areas selected for pilot simplification research consider mature vegetation (having high
species diversity), soil types, drainage units, and uniform drainage flow. Areas identified
illustrate each soil type found in the mature woodland, new prairie, and old prairies and the
location best suited for sampling transects. These identified areas (reflecting soil types) are
placed at the top of drainage units when possible (having no land with encompassed drainage
upstream) safeguarding accurate sampling results.
Figure 40: Simplification Gradient Section: Mature Woodland
106 Figure 41: Simplification Sampling Proposed Programming: Mature Woodland
107 Figure 42: Simplification Sampling Proposed Programming: New Prairie
108 Figure 43: Simplification Sampling Proposed Programming: Old Prairie
109 Figure 44: Simplification Gradient Section: Prairies
Adequate complexity programming studies the threshold where VOCs increase or
decrease exponentially in comparison to the level of species diversity. These programming
studies are located in different systems typologies (soil, water, and vegetation) in order to elevate
the understanding of cross-talk and VOC emission within a respective systems setting. Through
studying different soil types and identifying the water regimes incorporated with those soil types,
we may increase our awareness about cross-talk within a respective system setting. This
knowledge is coupled with the assumption that an increase in species diversity generates an
increase in cross-talk/VOC.
Cooper/Skinner Center (building) Program
The Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center campus is located in the successional
vegetation community and nested within the heart of the property. The campus houses the
110 Center, three demonstration residential units, a café (coffee area with vending machines during
the week and opened functioning café on weekends), grocer/market (open on weekends hosting
farmers markets and workshops), and production greenhouse along with an outdoor
kitchen/patio, observation decks, and outdoor classrooms placed intermittent throughout the
site. The Center is a two-story structure with a greenhouse attached. The first floor is
programmed as the front-of-house with lecture halls, classrooms, conference rooms, cross-talk
exhibits, restrooms, offices, and gift shop. The second floor is programmed as the back-ofhouse with working laboratories, laboratory storage, and offices. The attached greenhouse is
programmed as a working laboratory and acts as a live exhibit.
Two of the three demonstration residential units are programmed to house seasonal
interns during their employment at the Center while the third and smaller unit (Eastern
residence) is used as housing for guest lecturers or researchers. The residential units are
embedded within a greenhouse intended for food production for those living in the residential
units. A singular residential unit and the residential greenhouse serves as living exhibit to
visitors.
The coffee-snack area and production greenhouse are a singular structural unit and
informally programmed as the living and social campus. Food produced on-site during growing
months and food grown within the production greenhouse during non-growing months is used
within the coffee-snack area. The grocer/market and café areas are designed as a retreat area
while immersed within a learning environment. They are also intended to be open to the public
(non-visitors of the Center) on weekend days. Other structures located throughout the property
including the outdoor kitchen, amphitheaters/outdoor classrooms, and observation decks are
designed as areas of learning or contemplation.
111 Programming developed on-site is designed to increase our knowledge of cross-talk and
VOC transmission. The intention is that by conducting research at the Center regarding VOCs
and the role it plays in the flora community, that decision-makers will then be able to develop
integrated systems strategies (regarding healthier food production and self-sustaining landscapes)
most appropriately suited for individual sites and other conditions.
CHAPTER 6
SITE DESIGN & DIAGRAMS
The proposed Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center is designed to function
and educate on sustainable living strategies. The site incorporates a number of
environmental systems and design components aimed toward executing this purpose.
Additionally, the design of the Center and campus demonstrates how industrial design
infrastructure can be sustainably be integrated into natural systems.
This chapter discusses environmental systems incorporated into the design, elements
used throughout the site and concepts and guidelines used in the development of the final
site design.
113 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
The site design incorporates a number of environmental systems throughout the site.
These systems are engaged in efforts to reduce the ecological footprint of the Center and
minimize the use of non-renewable energy and resources. Various sustainable techniques,
strategies, and technologies are utilized in the site aiding in the function of these environmental
systems. Sustainable techniques, strategies, and technologies incorporated into the site design
include: permaculture-based food production, composting systems, passive heating/cooling
systems through structural design, energy harvesting systems, cross-talk communication, and
using waste as a resource. The following diagrams (figures: 45 - 58) illustrate how these systems
operate and the relationships between their components. Figure 45 illustrates how plants and
microbial bacteria allocate their resources in response to their neighbors VOC emissions while
Figure 46 illustrates how plants signal one another to allocate their resources in response to
depredation sources and how each plant species may do
so in different ways.
Figure 45: Cross-­‐talk: Resource Allocation Self-­‐drawn Figure 46: Cross-­‐talk: Resource Allocation 2 Self-­‐drawn 114 Figure 47 exemplifies the necessary components required for biomimetic, whole systems design
while Figures 48 and 49 illustrate planting strategies through permaculture guild concepts and
demonstrate the interdependency that one plant has on another within the guild.
Figure 47: Designing with Biomimicry Source: http://biomimicry.net Figure 48: Permaculture Guild: Plan Source: Contributed by Alison Hubert
Figure 49: Permaculture Guild: Section Contributed by Brian Waters 115 Figure 50 diagrammatically illustrates the
hydrologic cycle in its atmospheric state while
Figure 51 shows the hydrologic cycle and the
fluvial geomorphologic movement of water as
it moves over land. Figures 52 and 53
illustrate stream flow and the relationship of
the thalweg (primary flow path) to pools
found within the stream corridor.
Figure 50: Hydrologic Cycle Source: Lyle, 1994 Figure 51: Hydrologic Cycle & Fluvial Geomorphology http-­‐//soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/wat/3/issue/92/index.php
116 Figure 53: Fluvial Geomorphology: Thalweg Plan http-­‐//www.fgmorph.com/fg_3_14.php
Figure 52: Fluvial Geomorphology: Thalweg Section http-­‐//www.fgmorph.com/fg_3_14.php Figure 54 illustrates a cyclical, regenerative design model. This design model is used within the
development of this project versus the conventional linear design model. Figure 55 depicts the
food web found within soil environments and demonstrates how nutrients are recycled thus
facilitating regenerative systems. Figures 56 and 57 illustrate how waste is used in natural
systems settings and depicts how waste from one source is food for another.
117 Figure 54: Regenerative Design Source: Lyle, 1994 Figure 55: Living Soil Figure 56: Waste As Food 1 Source: Hemenway, 2009 Source: Hemenway, 2009 Figure 57: Waste As Food 2 Source : Lyle, 1994 118 Figure 58 illustrates the key players in the natural food web depicting regenerative design. This
diagram shows its cyclical nature between key players and how waste created from one group is
food for another.
Figure 58: Producers-­‐Consumers-­‐Decomposer Source: Hemenway, 2009 SITE DESIGN
Developing a site design based upon natural systems and their relationships to one
another coupled with the integration of these systems and human-dominated patterns is key in
evolving this project. The thought is to create a nature-human ecotone and demonstrate this
ecotone through the site design of the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center. Visitors
of the Center can identify how each of the system’s patterns, both human and natural, have been
incorporated into the design and may themselves begin to identify other pattern integration
concepts.
The concept to the design of the Center is of homogenizing human-dominated grid
patterns with natural systems patterns found in nature. By using these two unique systems
119 patterns together and their encompassed juxtaposition, visitors may easily distinguish between
the two systems and may begin to make decisions upon their significance as independent
systems patterns or the effectiveness of their homogenization. This concept reflects the
potential and feasibility for human systems integration into natural systems. This design
approach also highlights the relevance of natural systems patterns found on a site and how they
may be incorporated into site design.
The built infrastructure (paving, boardwalks, and structures), developed from the
human-dominated and natural systems patterns, is located at the heart of the property in the
successional vegetation community. Infrastructure for the Center located within the
successional vegetation community and found minimally throughout the site (Figure 59), has
been developed through a series of Site Development Pattern Guidelines. Although the
infrastructure established upon the Site Development Pattern Guidelines is found throughout
the site, the infrastructure itself does not hinder research programming conducted on the
property.
120 Figure 59: Design Infrastructure Zone
121 The Site Development Pattern Guidelines have been created to highlight both human-
dominated systems and natural systems patterns for visitor awareness and reflect the variation in
systems that can occur in close proximities on a site. These guidelines consider structural form
and location, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and vegetation community establishment.
Furthermore, they interpret systems functions regarding stormwater, soil, and vegetation
communities. The guidelines that highly influenced site design, found in Figures 60 - 61, are as
follows:
SITE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN GUIDELINES
1. Vehicular circulation to follow drainage unit boundaries
§
Highlights natural systems patterns
§
Considers spreading the area of hardscape and volumes of subsequent
runoff evenly between adjacent watersheds; design fosters retention of
predevelopment drainage units and avoids the influx or deficiency of
runoff into one of the two adjacent drainage units
§
Considers drainage unit boundaries being used for VOC as research
program boundaries; follows the edge of research boundaries versus
dissecting the research site
2. Primary pedestrian circulation to follow non-hydric soil type boundaries
§
Highlighting natural soil patterns at human-scale; non-hydric soils types
facilitate organic pedestrian circulation form
122 3. Secondary pedestrian circulation to follow human-dominated grid patterns
§
Considers highlighting architectonic form of human systems patterns at
human scale; fosters efficient pedestrian circulation and access to built
facilities
4. Secondary infrastructure (building footprints, hardscapes, etc) only found in non-hydric
soil types
§
Considers highlighting natural soil patterns at the human/building scale;
non-hydric soil types facilitate organic building form
§
Considers potential stormwater runoff collected from secondary
infrastructure to flow downstream into hydric soils; hydric soils designed
to host emergent/wetland communities used for cleansing water
5. Roofs of structures pitched to follow watershed boundaries
§
Highlights natural systems patterns
§
Considers increasing the volume of hardscape and subsequent run-off
volumes to be spread evenly between adjacent watersheds; design fosters
predevelopment drainage units and designs against the influx or
deficiency of runoff into one of the two adjacent drainage units
6. Vegetation types to vary between hydric and non-hydric soil types
§
Highlights natural systems patterns (interior and exterior)
123 §
Considers hydric soils to be increasingly saturated and capable of hosting
wetlands and bioswales with emergent and wet prairie plant species;
stormwater collected is cleansed within the wetland zone
7. Species diversity gradients varying between soil types and drainage units
§
Considers designing infrastructural zone to resemble surrounding
research zones
Figure 60: Master Plan: 250 scale
124 125 Figure 61: Master Plan: 80 scale
DESIGN DIAGRAMS
The following diagrams (figures 62 – 65) illustrate how the Site Development Pattern
Guidelines highlight both the human-dominated and natural systems patterns. These images
illustrate movement, vegetation types and gradients, viewsheds, and waste and hydrology
use/movement on the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center campus. Although these
diagrams articulate the design around the Center’s campus, they do not highlight circulation and
viewsheds throughout the entire property.
126 Figure 62: Circulation Diagram
Vehicular circulation follows drainage unit boundaries while primary pedestrian circulation
follows non-hydric soil type boundaries. Secondary pedestrian circulation developed through
grid system.
127 Figure 63: Vegetation Gradients Diagram Vegetation communities separated by soil types. Emergent wetland zone found within hydric
soils while permaculture-based communities are found in non-hydric soil types. Vegetation
communities have species diversity gradients to resemble surrounding research zones.
Permaculture-based community gradients vary by drainage unit boundaries.
128 Figure 64: Waste and Hydrology Diagram Wastewater created from structures is piped into proximate living machines. Each living
machine has different biological systems and treats appropriate wastewater i.e., lab waste, human
waste, café/grocer waste. Once treated, effluent is used for passive irrigation.
129 Figure 65: Viewshed Diagram
Entrance views designed by the emergence from the woodland into the Cooper/Skinner
Sustainable Education Center campus. Primary views are designed to pull visitors through the
site while secondary view opportunities are created for general site observance.
SITE GRAPHICS
The following graphics (figures 66 – 70) illustrate how site users may experience the site. These
graphics demonstrate the sequence of events experienced by the user.
Figure 66: Property Entrance
Figure 67: View of Center
130 Figure 68: View from the Observation Deck
Figure 69: Living & Social Campus Entrance
131 132 Figure 70: Cafe, Grocer/Market, and Production Greenhouse Section STREAM REDESIGN
The channelized ditch running westbound though the site has been redesigned to
mediate water during high rain events while cleansing the water through emergent wetland plant
species and widened pools acting as sedimentation basins. Additionally, the redesigned stream
can provide more habitat and aesthetic value than previously capable of doing. Mimicing
naturally occurring streams and there evolving form over time, the redesigned stream may
provide increasing environmental and aesthetic values, thus becoming a destination for Center
visitors. Furthermore, the stream provides varying aesthetics as water flows fluctuate during
seasonal changes. Figure 71 illustrates varying stream aesthetics during fluctuating water events
and how water reclamation detention ponds are designed to passively fill and hold water once
high rain events have subsided.
133 LOW RAIN EVENTS
NORMAL RAIN EVENTS
HIGH RAIN EVENTS
COOPER/SKINNER STREAM EXPLODED DIAGRAM
Figure 71: Cooper/Skinner Redesigned Stream Diagram In addition to collecting runoff created on-site, the ditch collects runoff from the subdivisions
and farm fields located upstream. This water is polluted with trash and non-renewable inputs
like fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides and erodes the stream banks as it flows directly through
134 the site. Knowing this water to be polluted, three small detention ponds are created to study the
relationship of cross-talk in relationship to water reclamation over time. Figure 72 illustrates the
location of these detention ponds and stream form designed from fluvial geomorphologic
concepts.
Figure 72: Exploded Stream Diagram
The three small detention ponds, located on the periphery of the redesigned stream, are used for
the water reclamation program. These ponds (Figure 73) will provide the opportunity to study
the relationship of plant emitted VOCs and the reclamation of the polluted water over time.
135 Figure 73: Redesigned Stream: Waterborne Program
By designing the channelized ditch to mimic a natural stream through fluvial geomorphological
movement, the stream will not only mediate and cleanse the water but also provide an evolving
habitat as it evolves its form over time.
136 SITE ELEMENTS
Design elements found throughout the property are used in supporting the purpose and
function of the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center. Living machines, compost,
observation decks, amphitheaters/outdoor classrooms, and an outdoor kitchen are used in the
day-to-day functions of the Center. These design elements are used to educate visitors about
sustainable living while some elements function as waste reclamation units for the residence and
employees of the Center. With these elements not being designed within the scope of this
project, the following photos (Figures 74 – 84) show generic examples of these supporting
design elements. These photos are the most relevant examples for the site elements.
SITE ELEMENTS PHOTOS
Living Machine
Figure 74: Living Machine: Image 1 http//www.integratedsustainablesolutions.com/index.php?s=18 137 Figure 75: Living Machine: Image 2 http//landscapeandurbanism.blogspot.com/2008/09/earthships-­‐to-­‐el-­‐monte-­‐sagrado.html Figure 76: Living Machine: Image 3 http//www.michaelheacock.com/toolslinks /livingmachines.html 138 Compost
Figure 77: Compost Unit: Image 1 http-­‐//idreamofeden.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/composting-­‐for-­‐dummies-­‐myself-­‐included/ Figure 78: Compost Unit: Image 2 http-­‐//www.furniturehomedesign.com/category/home-­‐composting/ 139 Observation Decks
Figure 79: Observation Deck: Image 1 http-­‐//etc.usf.edu/clippix/picture/observation-­‐deck-­‐blue-­‐hole.html Figure 80: Observation Deck: Image 2 http-­‐//www.fws.gov/sacramentovalleyrefuges/recreation.html Outdoor Kitchen
140 Figure 81: Outdoor Kitchen: Image 1 http-­‐//www.watercrestpools.com/project_details/id/Outdoor-­‐Grilling-­‐Station/parentid/Outdoor-­‐Living Figure 82: Outdoor Kitchen: Image 2 http-­‐//www.decoratingfuture.com/design-­‐2/home-­‐design-­‐decorating/outdoor/outdoor-­‐kitchen-­‐designs-­‐
modern/ 141 Amphitheater/Outdoor Classroom
Figure 83: Amphitheater/Outdoor Classroom: Image 1 http-­‐
//ournature.oregonmetro.gov/list?region=All&&keys=&submit2=Apply&page=11 Figure 84: Amphitheater/Outdoor Classroom: Image 2 http-­‐//www.mckeever.org/event-­‐hosting/facilities.html CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The review of cross-talk, environmental systems, design components, and existing
sustainable education centers informed the design of the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable
Education Center. Although the Cooper/Skinner Center acts as a traditional sustainable
education center in promoting sustainable living, it doubles as a research institute. By
conducting innovative research on-site in tandem with the distinctive site design, the
Cooper/Skinner Center is truly unique in its form and function. While executing this
project, no precedents were identified using cross-talk strategies in research, design
application, or educational programs.
143 Due to the restrictions of the site and scope of this project, several additional items
should be addressed in future development of this project.
•
The development of pilot interior and exterior research programs (whether experimental
or created from new cross-talk knowledge)
•
Develop outreach programs and classes/workshop conducted at the Center with other
sustainability organizations
•
Develop a community involvement and volunteering program
•
Cultivate a planting plan and schedule based upon permaculture concepts; used for food
production, educational purposes, and cross-talk demonstration gardens (examples of
self-sustaining cross-talk landscapes for homeowners and businesses)
•
Develop programming to integrate livestock for food production and controlled
herbivory degradation
•
Create research programs developed for suburban and urban contexts
•
Develop Industrial Agriculture Program incorporating edge and ecotone concepts
A few items worked well in executing the design of the Cooper/Skinner Sustainable
Education Center. The concept of homogenizing human-dominated grid and natural systems
patterns, proved successful in demonstrating natural systems integration. Their juxtaposition is
easily understood by visitors and allows them to make their own decisions regarding its success
as a combined concept or the effectiveness as individual systems. Developing the Site
Development Pattern Guidelines was helpful in informing the site design. These guidelines
suggested the locations of paving, building, and vegetation allowing for unique and creative site
design.
144 In contrast to what worked well in the design, selecting a site that has several projects
being developed using the property and selecting a site as large as the Cooper/Skinner Farm was
sometimes problematic. With numerous people having either prior or present experience with
the site, the numerous suggestions sometimes hindered the forward momentum of the project.
Although numerous suggestions were graciously given, the derailment of concepts and design
occasionally occurred. Additionally, with the site being so large and having such variety, forward
momentum of the design was occasionally hindered by the overwhelming options.
One major challenge in the execution of this project was the translation of detailed
scientific knowledge into site design. With cross-talk being a recent discovery in the sciences
and a concept occurring at very small scales, designing a 146 acre site was difficult. Through
developing numerous cross-talk programs executing different research interests and identifying
each programs required landscapes needs, the task of placing and designing each program
seemed overwhelming. Fortunately, the site has numerous landscapes (having various soil,
hydrology, and vegetation types and combinations) with each presenting various opportunities
capable of hosting cross-talk research programs. Through these numerous landscapes found
throughout the site, the locations and needs of the research programs were met resulting in a
successful design.
Knowledge obtained through the innovative research conducted by this project would
significantly impact the future of constructed landscapes and the profession of landscape
architecture. Assuming the research programming to determine that cross-talk is a crucial link in
self-sustaining landscapes, the constructed landscapes of the future would no longer be reduced
to a handful of species produced from cloned, cultivated, and genetically modified species.
Professions associated with constructed landscapes, rang
145 ing from landscape architecture to planning to agronomy, would be forced to make
substantial changes in their design and development strategies.
The Cooper/Skinner Sustainable Education Center serves as a precedent utilizing
biomimetic concepts and the integration of those concepts into site design. Furthermore, the
Center demonstrates how biomimetic concepts can be incorporated into site and research
programming. As humans continue to exhaust the planet of its resources and produce abundant
wastes, designers must respond with proven systems strategies. Nature’s design principles and
solutions have proven themselves tried-and-true. It is time to make meaningful changes in our
daily lifestyles and this project serves as an agent in promoting these changes as a pathway to
global health.
146 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bell, Graham. Adaptation and Evolutionary Rescue in Meta-populations Experiencing
Environmental Deterioration. Science Magazine (2011), pages 1327-1330
Benyus, Janine. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: Williams
Morrow & Company, Inc., 1997
Biomimicry Institute. 21 December 2011 <http://biomimicry.net>
Centre for Alternative Technologies. 18 November 2011
<http://www.cat.org.uk/>
Dictionary.com. 24 February 2012 < http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/com>
Dramstad, Wenche, James Olson, and Rickard Forman. Landscape Ecology Principles in
Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning Washington, DC: Island Press, Inc.,
1996
Engelberth, Juergen, Hans T. Albon, EricA. Schmelz, and James H. Tumlinson. Airborne
147 Signal Prime Plants Against Insect Herbivore Attack. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (2004) Vol. 101 No. 6. pages 1781-1785
Findhorn Ecovillage. 19 November 2011 <http://ecovillagenews.org>
Findhorn Foundation. 18 November 2011 <http://findhorn.org>
Gaia Education. 18. November 2011
<http://www.gaiaeducation.org/>
Garibaldi, Lucas A., Marcelo A. Aizen, Alexandra M. Klein, Saul A. Cunningham, and
Lawrence D. Harder. Global Growth and Stability of Agricultural Yield Decrease With
Pollinator Dependence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2011) Vol.
108. No.14, pages 5909-5914
Google Earth. Software Program, interactive mapping. 18 November 2011
Google Images. 19 November 2011 <http://www.forbes.com_findhorn>
Google Images. 19 November 2011 <http://www.amourexauban.net_findhorn>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//etc.usf.edu/clippix/picture/observation-deck-blue-hole.html>
148 Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//idreamofeden.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/composting-for-dummies-myselfincluded/>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//landscapeandurbanism.blogspot.com/2008/09/earthships-to-el-montesagrado.html>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http//ournature.oregonmetro.gov/list?region=All&&keys=&submit2=Apply&page=1
1>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//www.decoratingfuture.com/design-2/home-designdecorating/outdoor/outdoor-kitchen-designs-modern/>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//www.furniturehomedesign.com/category/home-composting/>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//www.fws.gov/sacramentovalleyrefuges/recreation.html>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//www.integratedsustainablesolutions.com/index.php?s=18>
149 Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//www.mckeever.org/event-hosting/facilities.html>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//www.michaelheacock.com/toolslinks/livingmachines.html>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http//www.southernadirondackaudubon.org/BirdingLocations/CartersPond/Cartersp
ond.html>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http-//www.watercrestpools.com/project_details/id/Outdoor-GrillingStation/parentid/Outdoor-Living>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http://www.ateic_solar>
Google Images. 19 November 2011
<http://www.ecovillagenews.org_findhorn>
GreenFacts. 24 February 2012 <http://www.greenfacts.org>
Heil, Martin and Richard Karban. Explaining Evolution of Plant Communication by
150 Airborne Signals, Trends in Ecology and Evolution Magazine (2010), pages 137-144
Hemenway, Toby. Gaia’s Garden A Guide to Home-Sacle Permaculture: Second Edition.
Chelsea Green Publishing Company. 2009
Kegge, Wouter and Ronald Pierik. Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds and Plant
Competition, Trends in Plant Science (2010), pages 126-132
Kellert, Stephen. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings
to Life. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Inc. 2008
Levins, Richard. Some Demographic and Genetic Consequences of Environmental
Heterogeneity for Biological Control. Entomological Society of America (1969). Volume:
15, Issue: 3 pages 237-240
Lyle, John Tillman. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1994
Markesteijn, Lars and Lourens Poorter. Seedling Root Morphology and Biomass Allocation
of 62 tropical tree Species in Relation to Drought-and-Shade-Tolerance, British
Ecological Society. Journal of Ecology (2009); Vol. 97, pages 311-325
McDonough, William and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make
Things. China: North Point Press, 2002
151 McHarg, Ian. Design with Nature Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992
Meehan, Timothy D., Ben P. Werling, Douglas A. Landis, and Claudio Gratton. Agricultural
Landscape Simplification and Insecticide Use in the Midwestern United States.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2011), pages 1-6
Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y.. National Water Footprint Accounts: The Green, Blue
and Grey Water Footprints of Production and Consumption. UNESCO-IHE Institute
for Water Education (2011). Value of Water Research Report Series No. 50, pages 1-50
Motloch, John. Resource balancing guide for the FSEEC-Landlab: BSU's First Green
Building and Built site. Final report for the 2001-2002 CERES fellowship, 2002
Patchett, James M. and Gerould S. Willhelm. The Ecology and Culture of Water.
Conservation Research Institute. (2008), pages 1-19
Rusch, Adrien, Muriel Valantin-Morison, Jean-Pierre Sarthou, and Jean Roger-Estrade.
Biological Control of Insects Pests In Agroecosystems: Effects of Crop Management,
farming Systems, and Seminatural Habitats at the Landscape Scale: A Review. Advance
in Agronomy, (2010) Vol. 109, pages 219-259
Thomas, Philippe James., Pamela Martin, Celine Boutin. Bush, Bugs, and Birds;
152 Interdependency In a Farming Landscape. Open Journal of Ecology (2011). Vol. 1 No.
2, pages 9-23
Trees of Life. Principles of Ecological Design. 18. November 2011
<http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.eco.html>
Univeristy of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 18 November 2011
<http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm#Themes>
Western, David. Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences (2011) Vol. 98, pages 5458-5465
Yang, Jungwook, Joseph W. Kloepper, and Choon-Min Ryu. Rhizosphere Bacteria Help
Plants Tolerate Abiotic Stress, Trends in Plant Science(2009), pages 1-4
Zavaleta, Erika S., Jae R. Pasari, Kristin B. Hulvey, and G. David Tilman. Sustaining
Multiple Ecosystem Functions in Grassland Communities Requires Higher Biodiversity,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2010). Vol. 107. No. 4, pages 14431446