Biosphere 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Biosphere 2
Biosphere 2 Habitat & Lung 2009-05-10.jpg
Exterior of Biosphere 2
Biosphere 2 is located in Arizona
Biosphere 2
Location within Arizona
Biosphere 2 is located in the US
Biosphere 2
Biosphere 2 (the US)
General information
TypeResearch facility
LocationOracle, Arizona, U.S.
Address32540 S Biosphere Rd, Oracle, AZ 85739
Coordinates32°34′44″N 110°51′02″W / 32.578778°N 110.850594°W / 32.578778; -110.850594Coordinates: 32°34′44″N 110°51′02″W / 32.578778°N 110.850594°W / 32.578778; -110.850594
Elevation3,820 ft (1,164 m)
Construction started1987
Completed1991
OwnerThe University of Arizona
Technical details
Floor area3.14 acres (12,700 m2)
Grounds40 acres (160,000 m2)
Website
biosphere2.org

Biosphere 2 is an American Earth system science research facility located in Oracle, Arizona. It has been owned by the University of Arizona since 2011. Its mission is to serve as a center for research, outreach, teaching, and lifelong learning about Earth, its living systems, and its place in the universe. It is a 3.14-acre (1.27-hectare)[1] structure originally built to be an artificial, materially closed ecological system, or vivarium. It remains the largest closed system ever created.[2]

Biosphere 2 was originally meant to demonstrate the viability of closed ecological systems to support and maintain human life in outer space.[3] It was designed to explore the web of interactions within life systems in a structure with different areas based on various biological biomes. In addition to the several biomes and living quarters for people, there was an agricultural area and work space to study the interactions between humans, farming, technology and the rest of nature as a new kind of laboratory for the study of the global ecology. Its mission was a two-year closure experiment with a crew of eight humans ("biospherians").[4] Long-term it was seen as a precursor to gain knowledge about the use of closed biospheres in space colonization. As an experimental ecological facility it allowed the study and manipulation of a mini biospheric system without harming Earth's biosphere. Its seven biome areas were a 1,900-square-meter (20,000 sq ft) rainforest, an 850-square-meter (9,100 sq ft) ocean with a coral reef, a 450-square-meter (4,800 sq ft) mangrove wetlands, a 1,300-square-metre (14,000 sq ft) savannah grassland, a 1,400-square-meter (15,000 sq ft) fog desert, and two anthropogenic biomes: a 2,500-square-meter (27,000 sq ft) agricultural system and a human habitat with living spaces, laboratories and workshops. Below ground was an extensive part of the technical infrastructure. Heating and cooling water circulated through independent piping systems and passive solar input through the glass space frame panels covering most of the facility, and electrical power was supplied into Biosphere 2 from an onsite natural gas energy center.[5]

Biosphere 2 was only used twice for its original intended purposes as a closed-system experiment: once from 1991 to 1993, and the second time from March to September 1994. Both attempts, though heavily publicized, ran into problems including low amounts of food and oxygen, die-offs of many animals and plants included in the experiment (though this was anticipated since the project used a strategy of deliberately "species-packing" anticipating losses as the biomes developed), group dynamic tensions among the resident crew, outside politics and a power struggle over management and direction of the project. Nevertheless, the closure experiments set world records in closed ecological systems, agricultural production, health improvements with the high nutrient and low caloric diet the crew followed, and insights into the self-organization of complex biomic systems and atmospheric dynamics.[6] The second closure experiment achieved total food sufficiency and did not require injection of oxygen.[7]

In June 1994, during the middle of the second experiment, the managing company, Space Biosphere Ventures, was dissolved, and the facility was left in limbo. Columbia University assumed management of the facility in 1995 and used it to run experiments until 2003. It then looked in danger of being demolished to make way for housing and retail stores, but was taken over for research by the University of Arizona in 2007. The University of Arizona took full ownership of the structure in 2011.

Planning and construction[edit]

Biosphere 2 was originally constructed between 1987 and 1991 by Space Biosphere Ventures, a joint venture whose principal officers were John P. Allen, inventor and executive chairman; Margaret Augustine, CEO; Marie Harding, vice-president of finance; Abigail Alling, vice president of research; Mark Nelson, director of space and environmental applications, William F. Dempster, director of system engineering, and Norberto Alvarez-Romo, vice president of mission control. Project funding came primarily from the joint venture's financial partner, Ed Bass's Decisions Investment. The project cost US$200 million from 1985 to 2007.[citation needed]

It was named "Biosphere 2" because it was meant to be the second fully self-sufficient biosphere, after the Earth itself.

Location[edit]

Biosphere 2 sits on a sprawling 40-acre (16-hectare) science campus that is open to the public
Exterior showing parts of the rainforest biome and of the habitat, with the West lung in the background.

The glass and spaceframe facility is located in Oracle, Arizona at the base of the Santa Catalina Mountains, about 50 minutes north of Tucson. Its elevation is around 4,000 feet (1,200 m) above sea level.[8]

Engineering[edit]

Biosphere 2, view from the thornscrub, a transition zone between Savannah and Desert (foreground) and Ocean (background) sections.
The fog desert section of Biosphere in 2005
The tropical rainforest biome in February, 2017

The above-ground physical structure of Biosphere 2 was made of steel tubing and high-performance glass and steel frames. The frame and glazing materials were designed and made to specification by a firm run by a one-time associate of Buckminster Fuller, Peter Jon Pearce (Pearce Structures, Inc.).[9][10] The window seals and structures had to be designed to be almost perfectly airtight, such that the air exchange would be extremely low, permitting tracking of subtle changes over time. The patented airtight sealing methods, developed by Pearce and William Dempster, achieved a remarkable leak rate of less than 10% per year. Without such tight closure, the slow decline of oxygen which occurred at a rate of less than 1/4% per month during the first two-year closure experiment might not have been observed.[11][12]

During the day, the heat from the sun caused the air inside to expand and during the night it cooled and contracted. To avoid having to deal with the huge forces that maintaining a constant volume would create, the structure had large diaphragms kept in domes called "lungs" or variable volume structures.[13]

Since opening a window was not an option, the structure also required a sophisticated system to regulate temperatures within desired parameters, which varied for the different biomic areas. Though cooling was the largest energy need, heating had to be supplied in the winter and closed loop pipes and air handlers were key parts of the energy system. An energy center on site provided electricity and heated and cooled water, employing natural gas and backup generators, ammonia chillers and water cooling towers.[14]

First mission[edit]

The first closed mission lasted from September 26, 1991 to September 26, 1993. The crew were: medical doctor and researcher Roy Walford, Jane Poynter, Taber MacCallum, Mark Nelson, Sally Silverstone, Abigail Alling, Mark Van Thillo, and Linda Leigh.[15]

The agricultural system produced 83% of the total diet, which included crops of bananas, papayas, sweet potatoes, beets, peanuts, lablab and cowpea beans, rice, and wheat.[16][17] No toxic chemicals could be used, since they would impact health and water and nutrients were recycled back into the farm soils. Especially during the first year the eight inhabitants reported continual hunger. Calculations indicated that Biosphere 2's farm was amongst the highest producing in the world "exceeding by more than five times that of the most efficient agrarian communities of Indonesia, southern China, and Bangladesh.”[18]

They consumed the same low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet which Roy Walford had studied in his research on extending lifespan through diet.[19] Medical markers indicated the health of the crew during the two years was excellent. They showed the same improvement in health indices such as lowering of blood cholesterol, blood pressure, enhancement of immune system. They lost an average of 16% of their pre-entry body weight before stabilizing and regaining some weight during their second year.[20] Subsequent studies showed that the biospherians' metabolism became more efficient at extracting nutrients from their food as an adaptation to the low-calorie, high nutrient diet.[21] "The overall health of the biospherians crews inside Biosphere 2 confirm that the original design of the Biosphere 2 technosphere systems did avoid a buildup of toxins, and the bioregenerative technologies and life systems inside Biosphere 2 maintained a healthy environment."[22]

Some of the domestic animals that were included in the agricultural area during the first mission included four African pygmy goats and one billy goat, 35 hens and three roosters (a mix of Indian jungle fowl (Gallus gallus), Japanese silky bantam, and a hybrid of these), two sows and one boar Ossabaw dwarf pigs, as well as tilapia fish grown in a rice and azolla pond system originating millennia ago in China.[23]

A strategy of "species-packing" was practiced to ensure that food webs and ecological function could be maintained if some species did not survive. The fog desert area became more chaparral in character due to condensation from the space frame. The savannah was seasonally active; its biomass was cut and stored by the crew as part of their management of carbon dioxide. Rainforest pioneer species grew rapidly, but trees there and in the savannah suffered from etiolation and weakness caused by lack of stress wood, normally created in response to winds in natural conditions. Corals reproduced in the ocean area, and crew helped maintain ocean system health by hand-harvesting algae from the corals, manipulating calcium carbonate and pH levels to prevent the ocean becoming too acidic, and by installing an improved protein skimmer to supplement the algae turf scrubber system originally installed to remove excess nutrients.[24] The mangrove area developed rapidly but with less understory than a typical wetland possibly because of reduced light levels.[25] Nevertheless, it was judged to be a successful analogue to the Everglades area of Florida where the mangroves and marsh plants were collected.[26]

Biosphere 2 because of its small size and buffers, concentration of organic materials and life, had greater fluctuations and more rapid biogeochemical cycles than are found in Earth's biosphere.[27] Most of the introduced vertebrate species and virtually all of the pollinating insects died, though there was reproduction of plants and animals.[28] Insect pests, like cockroaches, flourished. Many insects had been included in original species mixes in the biomes but a globally invasive tramp ant species, Paratrechina longicornis, unintentionally sealed in, had come to dominate other ant species.[29] The planned ecological succession in the rainforest and strategies to protect the area from harsh incident sunlight and salt aerosols from the ocean worked well, and a surprising amount of the original biodiversity persisted.[30] Biosphere 2 in its early ecological development was likened to an island ecology.[31]

Group dynamics: psychology, conflict, and cooperation[edit]

View of part of the crew dining room, serving counter from kitchen and stairway up to an entertainment area.
The crew's kitchen as it originally looked during the first mission.

Much of the evidence for isolated human groups comes from psychological studies of scientists overwintering in Antarctic research stations.[32] The study of this phenomenon is "confined environment psychology", and according to Jane Poynter[33][34] it was known to be a challenge and often crews split into factions.[35]

Before the first closure mission was half over, the group had split into two factions and, according to Poynter, people who had been intimate friends had become implacable enemies, barely on speaking terms.[36] Others point out that the crew continued to work together as a team to achieve the experiment's goals, mindful that any action that harmed Biosphere 2 might imperil their own health. This is in contrast to other expeditions where internal frictions can lead to unconscious sabotage of each other and the overall mission. All of the crew felt a very strong and visceral bond with their living world.[37] They kept air and water quality, atmospheric dynamics and health of the life systems constantly in their attention in a very visceral and profound way. This intimate “metabolic connection” enabled the crew to discern and respond to even subtle changes in the living systems.[38] (Alling et al., 2002; Alling and Nelson, 1993). "Appreciation of the value of biosphere interconnectedness and interdependency was appreciated as both an everyday beauty and a challenging reality",[37] Walford later acknowledged "I don't like some of them, but we were a hell of a team. That was the nature of the factionalism... but despite that, we ran the damn thing and we cooperated totally".[39]

The factions inside the bubble formed from a rift and power struggle between the joint venture partners on how the science should proceed, as biospherics or as specialist ecosystem studies (perceived as reductionist). The faction that included Poynter felt strongly that increasing research should be prioritized over degree of closure. The other faction backed project management and the overall mission objectives. On February 14, a portion of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) resigned.[40] Time Magazine wrote: "Now, the veneer of credibility, already bruised by allegations of tamper-prone data, secret food caches and smuggled supplies, has cracked ... the two-year experiment in self-sufficiency is starting to look less like science and more like a $150 million stunt".[41] In fact, the SAC was dissolved because it had deviated from its mandate to review and improve scientific research and became involved in advocating management changes. A majority of the SAC members chose to remain as consultants to Biosphere 2. The SAC's recommendations in their report were implemented including a new Director of Research [Dr. Jack Corliss], allowing import/export of scientific samples and equipment through the facility airlocks to increase research and decrease crew labor, and to generate a formal research program. Some sixty-four projects were included in the research program that Walford and Alling spearheaded developing.[42]

Undoubtedly the lack of oxygen and the calorie-restricted, nutrient-dense diet[43] contributed to low morale.[44] The Alling faction feared that the Poynter group were prepared to go so far as to import food, if it meant making them fitter to carry out research projects. They considered that would be a project failure by definition.

In November 1992, the hungry Biospherians began eating seed stocks that had not been grown inside the Biosphere 2.[45] Poynter made Chris Helms, PR Director for the enterprise, aware of this. She was promptly dismissed by Margret Augustine, CEO of Space Biospheres Ventures, and told to come out of the biosphere. This order was, however, never carried out. Poynter writes[46] that she simply decided to stay put, correctly reasoning that the order could not be enforced without effectively terminating the closure.

Isolated groups tend to attach greater significance to group dynamic and personal emotional fluctuations common in all groups. Some reports from polar station crews exaggerated psychological problems.[47] So, although some of the first closure team thought they were depressed, psychological examination of the biospherians showed no depression and fit the explorer/adventurer profile, with both women and men testing very similar to astronauts.[48] One of the psychologists noted, "If I was lost in the Amazon and was looking for a guide to get out, and to survive with, then [the biospherian crew] would be top choices."[49]

Challenges[edit]

Among the problems and miscalculations encountered in the first mission were unanticipated condensation making the "desert" too wet, population explosions of greenhouse ants and cockroaches, morning glories overgrowing the rainforest area, blocking out other plants and less sunlight (40-50% of outside light) entering the facility than originally anticipated. Biospherians intervened to control invasive plants when needed to preserve biodiversity, functioning as "keystone predators". In addition, construction itself was a challenge; for example, it was difficult to manipulate the bodies of water to have waves and tidal changes.[50][51] Engineers came up with innovative solutions to supplement natural functions the Earth's biosphere normally performs, e.g. vacuum pumps to create gentle waves in the ocean without endangering marine biota, sophisticated heating and cooling systems. All the technology was selected to minimize outgassing and discharge of harmful substances which might damage Biosphere 2's life.[52][53]

There was controversy when the public learned that the project had allowed an injured member to leave and return, carrying new material inside. The team claimed the only new supplies brought in were plastic bags, but others accused them of bringing food and other items. More criticism was raised when it was learned that, likewise, the project injected oxygen in January 1993 to make up for a failure in the balance of the system that resulted in the amount of oxygen steadily declining.[54] Some thought that these criticisms ignored that Biosphere 2 was an experiment where the unexpected would occur, adding to knowledge of how complex ecologies develop and interact, not a demonstration where everything was known in advance.[55] H.T. Odum noted: “The management process during 1992-1993 using data to develop theory, test it with simulation, and apply corrective actions was in the best scientific tradition. Yet some journalists crucified the management in the public press, treating the project as if it was an Olympic contest to see how much could be done without opening the doors”.[56]

The oxygen inside the facility, which began at 20.9%, fell at a steady pace and after 16 months was down to 14.5%. This is equivalent to the oxygen availability at an elevation of 4,080 meters (13,400 ft).[57] Since some biospherians were starting to have symptoms like sleep apnea and fatigue, Walford and the medical team decided to boost oxygen with injections in January and August 1993. The oxygen decline and minimal response of the crew indicated that changes in air pressure are what trigger human adaptation responses. These studies enhanced the biomedical research program.[58]

Managing CO2 levels was a particular challenge, and a source of controversy regarding the Biosphere 2 project's alleged misrepresentation to the public. Daily fluctuation of carbon dioxide dynamics was typically 600 ppm because of the strong drawdown during sunlight hours by plant photosynthesis, followed by a similar rise during the nighttime when system respiration dominated. As expected, there was also a strong seasonal signature to CO2 levels, with wintertime levels as high as 4,000-4,500 ppm and summertime levels near 1,000 ppm. The crew worked to manage the CO2 by occasionally turning on a CO2 scrubber, activating and de-activating the desert and savannah through control of irrigation water, cutting and storing biomass to sequester carbon, and utilizing all potential planting areas with fast-growing species to increase system photosynthesis.[59] In November 1991, investigative reporting in the Village Voice alleged that the crew had secretly installed the CO2 scrubber device, and claimed that this violated Biosphere 2's advertised goal of recycling all materials naturally.[60] Others pointed out there was nothing secret about the carbon dioxide device and it constituted another technical system augmenting ecological processes. The carbon precipitator could reverse the chemical reactions and thus release the stored carbon dioxide in later years when the facility might need additional carbon.[59]

Many suspected the drop in oxygen was due to microbes in the soil.[citation needed] The soils were selected to have enough carbon to provide for the plants of the ecosystems to grow from infancy to maturity, a plant mass increase of perhaps 20 tons (18,000 kg).[61] The release rate of that soil carbon as carbon dioxide by respiration of soil microbes was an unknown that the Biosphere 2 experiment was designed to reveal. Subsequent research showed that Biosphere 2's farm soils had reached a more stable ratio of carbon and nitrogen, lowering the rate of CO2 release, by 1998.[62]

The respiration rate was faster than the photosynthesis (possibly in part due to relatively low light penetration through the glazed structure and the fact that Biosphere 2 started with a small but rapidly increasing plant biomass) resulting in a slow decrease of oxygen. A mystery accompanied the oxygen decline: the corresponding increase in carbon dioxide did not appear. This concealed the underlying process until an investigation by Jeff Severinghaus and Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory using isotopic analysis showed that carbon dioxide was reacting with exposed concrete inside Biosphere 2 to form calcium carbonate, thereby sequestering both carbon and oxygen.[63]

Second mission[edit]

During the transition period between missions, extensive research and system improvements had been undertaken. Concrete was sealed to prevent uptake of carbon dioxide. The second mission began on March 6, 1994, with an announced run of ten months. The crew was Norberto Alvarez-Romo (Capt.), John Druitt, Matt Finn, Pascale Maslin, Charlotte Godfrey, Rodrigo Romo and Tilak Mahato. The second crew achieved complete sufficiency in food production.[7]

On April 1, 1994 a severe dispute within the management team led to the ousting of the on-site management by federal marshals serving a restraining order, and financier Ed Bass hired Stephen Bannon, manager of the Bannon & Co. investment banking team from Beverly Hills, California, to run Space Biospheres Ventures.[64] Some biospherians and staff were concerned about Bannon, who had previously investigated cost overruns at the site. Two former Biosphere 2 crew members flew back to Arizona to protest the hire and broke into the compound to warn current crew members that Bannon and the new management would jeopardize their safety.[65]

At 3 am on April 5, 1994, Abigail Alling and Mark Van Thillo, members of the first crew, allegedly vandalized the project from outside,[66] opening one double-airlock door and three single door emergency exits, leaving them open for approximately fifteen minutes. Five panes of glass were also broken. Alling later told the Chicago Tribune that she "considered the Biosphere to be in an emergency state... In no way was it sabotage. It was my responsibility."[67] About 10% of the biosphere's air was exchanged with the outside during this time, according to systems analyst Donella Meadows, who received a communication from Ms. Alling in which she explained that she and Van Thillo judged it their ethical duty to give those inside the choice of continuing with the drastically changed human experiment or leaving, as they didn't know what the crew had been told of the new situation. “On April 1, 1994, at approximately 10 AM … limousines arrived on the biosphere site … with two investment bankers hired by Mr. Bass … They arrived with a temporary restraining order to take over direct control of the project … With them were 6-8 police officers hired by the Bass organization … They immediately changed locks on the offices … All communication systems were changed (telephone and access codes), and [we] were prevented from receiving any data regarding safety, operations, and research of Biosphere 2.” Alling emphasized several times in her letter that the “bankers” who suddenly took over “knew nothing technically or scientifically, and little about the biospherian crew.”[68]

Four days later, the captain Norberto Alvarez-Romo (by then married to Biosphere 2 chief executive Margaret Augustine) precipitously left the Biosphere for a "family emergency" after his wife's suspension.[67] He was replaced by Bernd Zabel, who had been nominated as captain of the first mission but who was replaced at the last minute. Two months later, Matt Smith replaced Matt Finn.[citation needed]

The ownership and management company Space Biospheres Ventures was officially dissolved on June 1, 1994. This left the scientific and business management of the mission to the interim turnaround team, who had been contracted by the financial partner, Decisions Investment Co.[57]

Mission 2 was ended prematurely on September 6, 1994. No further total system science has emerged from Biosphere 2 as the facility was changed by Columbia University from a closed ecological system to a "flow-through" system where CO2 could be manipulated at desired levels.[57]

Steve Bannon left Biosphere 2 after two years, but his departure was marked by a civil lawsuit filed against Space Biosphere Ventures by the former crew members who had broken in.[69] During a 1996 trial, Bannon testified that he had called one of the plaintiffs, Abigail Alling, a "self-centered, deluded young woman" and a "bimbo."[70] He also testified that when the woman submitted a five-page complaint outlining safety problems at the site, he promised to shove the complaint "down her fucking throat." Bannon attributed this to "hard feelings and broken dreams."[71] At the end of the trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs and ordered Space Biosphere Ventures to pay them $600,000, but also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the company $40,089 for the damage they had caused.[65] Some[who?] have observed that Bannon orchestrated the hostile take-over and destruction of Biosphere 2 as a revolutionary total system global ecology laboratory, not because of any interest in ecological science.[72]

Science[edit]

A special issue of the Ecological Engineering journal edited by Marino and Howard T. Odum (1999), published as "Biosphere 2: Research Past and Present" (Elsevier, 1999) represents the most comprehensive assemblage of collected papers and findings from Biosphere 2. The papers range from calibrated models that describe the system metabolism, hydrologic balance, and heat and humidity, to papers that describe rainforest, mangrove, ocean, and agronomic system development in this carbon dioxide-rich environment.[73][74] Though several dissertations and many scientific papers used data from the early closure experiments at Biosphere 2, much of the original data has never been analyzed and is unavailable or lost, perhaps due to scientific politics and in-fighting.[22][42]

Some of the controversy at Biosphere 2 stemmed from the long-standing division in science between analytic, reductionist science and integrative, holistic science.

Rebecca Reider expanded her history of science thesis at Harvard into a book on Biosphere 2. She noted that because Biosphere 2's creators were perceived as outsiders to academic science, the project was scrutinized but sometimes poorly understood in the media. She noted that Biosphere 2 broke a number of unspoken taboos: “’Science’ could be performed only by official scientists, only the right high priests could interpret nature for everyone else….’Science’ was separate from art (and the thinking mind was separate from the emotional heart)…’Science’ required some neat intellectual boundary between humans and nature; it did not necessarily involve humans learning to live with the world around them. Finally, ‘science’ must follow a specific method: think up a hypothesis, test it and get some numbers to prove you were right”. After Columbia University assumed management, the scrutiny ceased because it was assumed they were "proper" scientists.[75]

The dichotomy is a false one as there are many valid approaches to science. John Allen, the inventor of Biosphere 2, wrote: “Four basic ways uneasily co-exist in science to deal with understanding complex systems: [1] prolonged naturalist observation, description of observed regularities and classification of parts… [2] analyzing component parts of the object of study, formulating restricted hypotheses, and then, holding all else other than the chosen part as constant as possible, measure changes produced by measured impacts...[3] accept complexity as an irreducible element, and then to search for the organized structure that enables us to examine the entity as a whole, to ascertain its specific laws or regularities…[4] Put into an operating model a synthesis of these three approaches, together with test principles of engineering, to test the validity of the existent thinking’s predictive powers, and to provide a fecund base for new observations. This full interplay of observation, analysis and structuring to make a working apparatus in order to test and extend our knowledge of biospherics is the approach we used to create Biosphere 2. This interplay of all four scientific approaches is required to study Earth’s biosphere, the most complex entity yet encountered.”[76]

Praise and criticism[edit]

One view of Biosphere 2 was that it was "the most exciting scientific project to be undertaken in the U.S. since President John F. Kennedy launched us toward the moon".[77] Others called it "New Age drivel masquerading as science".[78] John Allen and Roy Walford did have mainstream credentials. John Allen held a degree in Metallurgical-Mining Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School.[23][79] Roy Walford received his doctorate of medicine from the University of Chicago and taught at UCLA as a Professor of Pathology for 35 years. Mark Nelson obtained his Ph.D. in 1998 under Professor H.T. Odum in ecological engineering further developing the constructed wetlands used to treat and recycle sewage in Biosphere 2,[80] to coral reef protection along the Yucatán coast where the corals were collected.[81] Linda Leigh obtained her PhD with a dissertation on biodiversity and the Biosphere 2 rainforest working with Odum.[82] Abigail Alling, Mark van Thillo and Sally Silverstone helped start the Biosphere Foundation where they worked on coral reef and marine conservation and sustainable agricultural systems.[83] Jane Poynter and Taber MacCallum co-founded Paragon Space Development Corporation which has studied the first mini-closed system and the first full animal life cycle in space and assisted in setting world records in high altitude descents.[84]

Questioning the credentials of the participants (despite the contribution in the preparation phase of Biosphere 2 of worldwide top-level scientists and among others the Russian Academy of Sciences), Marc Cooper wrote that "the group that built, conceived, and directs the Biosphere project is not a group of high-tech researchers on the cutting edge of science but a clique of recycled theater performers that evolved out of an authoritarian—and decidedly non-scientific—personality cult".[85] He was referring to the Synergia Ranch in New Mexico, where indeed many of the Biospherians did practice theater under John Allen's leadership, and began to develop the ideas behind Biosphere 2.[86] They also founded the Institute of Ecotechnics[87] and began innovative field projects in challenging biomes to advance the healthy integration of human technologies and the environment where many of the biospherian candidates gained experience in operating real-time complex projects.[88][89]

One of their own scientific consultants was earlier critical. Dr. Ghillean Prance, director of the Royal Botanical Gardens in Kew, designed the rainforest biome inside the Biosphere. Although he later changed his opinion, acknowledging the unique scope of this experiment and contributed to its success as a consultant, in a 1983 interview (8 years before the start of the experiment), Prance said, "I was attracted to the Institute of Ecotechnics because funds for research were being cut and the institute seemed to have a lot of money which it was willing to spend freely. Along with others, I was ill-used. Their interest in science is not genuine. They seem to have some sort of secret agenda, they seem to be guided by some sort of religious or philosophical system." Prance went on in the 1991 newspaper interview to say "they are visionaries.,.And maybe to fulfill their vision they have become somewhat cultlike. But they are not a cult, per se....I am interested in ecological restoration systems. And I think all sorts of scientific things can come of this experiment, far beyond the space goal... When they came to me with this new project, they seemed so well organized, so inspired, I simply decided to forget the past. You shouldn't hold their past against them." [90]

Poynter in her memoir rebuts the critique that because some of the creative team of Biosphere 2 weren't highly credentialed scientists, that that ad hominem argument invalidates the results of the endeavor. "“Some reporters hurled accusations that we were unscientific. Apparently because many of the SBV managers were not themselves degreed scientists, this called into question the entire validity of the project, even though some of the world’s best scientists were working vigorously on the project’s design and operation. The critique was not fair. Since leaving Biosphere 2, I have run a small business for ten years that sent experiments on the shuttle and to the space station, and is designing life support systems for the replacement shuttle and future moon base. I do not have a degree, not even an MBA from Harvard, as John [Allen] had. I hire scientists and top engineers. Our company’s credibility is not called into question because of my credentials: we are judged on the quality of our work”.[91] H.T. Odum noted that mavericks, outsiders have often contributed to the development of science: “The original management of Biosphere 2 was regarded by many scientists as untrained for lack of scientific degrees, even though they had engaged in a preparatory study program for a decade, interacting with the international community of scientists including the Russians involved with closed systems. The history of science has many examples where people of atypical background open science in new directions, in this case implementing mesocosm organization and ecological engineering with fresh hypotheses”.[92]

The Biosphere 2 Science Advisory Committee, chaired by Tom Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution, in its report of August 1992 reported: "The committee is in agreement that the conception and construction of Biosphere 2 were acts of vision and courage. The scale of Biosphere 2 is unique and Biosphere 2 is already providing unexpected scientific results not possible through other means (notably the documented, unexpected decline in atmospheric oxygen levels.) Biosphere 2 will make important scientific contributions in the fields of biogeochemical cycling, the ecology of closed ecological systems, and restoration ecology." Columbia University assembled outside scientists to evaluate the potential of the facility after they took over management, and concluded the following: "A group of world-class scientists got together and decided the Biosphere 2 facility is an exceptional laboratory for addressing critical questions relative to the future of Earth and its environment."[93]

Columbia University[edit]

In December 1995 the Biosphere 2 owners transferred management to Columbia University of New York City which embarked on a successful eight-year run at the Biosphere 2 campus.[94] Columbia ran Biosphere 2 as a research site and campus until 2003.[95] Subsequently, management reverted to the owners.

In 1996, Columbia University changed the virtually airtight, materially closed structure designed for closed system research, to a "flow-through" system, and halted closed system research. They manipulated carbon dioxide levels for global warming research, and injected desired amounts of carbon dioxide, venting as needed.[96] During Columbia's tenure, students from Columbia and other colleges and universities would often spend one semester at the site.[97]

Important research during Columbia's tenure demonstrated the devastating impacts on coral reefs from elevated atmospheric CO2 and acidification that will result from continued global climate change.[98] Frank Press, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, described these interactions between atmosphere and ocean, taking advantage of the highly controllable ocean mesocosm of Biosphere 2, as the “first unequivocal experimental confirmation of the human impact on the planet”.[99]

Studies in Biosphere 2’s terrestrial biomes showed that a saturation point was reached with elevated CO2 beyond which they are unable to uptake more. The studies' authors noted that the striking differences between the Biosphere 2 rainforest and desert biomes in their whole system responses “illustrates the importance of large-scale experimental research in the study of complex global change issues".[100]

Site sold[edit]

In January 2005, Decisions Investments Corporation, owner of Biosphere 2, announced that the project's 1,600-acre (650 ha) campus was for sale. They preferred a research use to be found for the complex but were not excluding buyers with different intentions, such as big universities, churches, resorts, and spas.[101] In June 2007 the site was sold for $50 million to CDO Ranching & Development, L.P. 1,500 houses and a resort hotel were planned, but the main structure was still to be available for research and educational use.[102]

Acquisition by University of Arizona[edit]

On June 26, 2007, the University of Arizona announced it would take over research at the Biosphere 2. The announcement ended fears that the structure would be demolished. University officials said private gifts and grants enabled them to cover research and operating costs for three years with the possibility of extending funding for ten years.[103] It was extended for ten years, and is now engaged in research projects including research into the terrestrial water cycle and how it relates to ecology, atmospheric science, soil geochemistry, and climate change. In June 2011, the university announced that it would assume full ownership of Biosphere 2, effective July 1.[104]

Biosphere 2, 2015

CDO Ranching & Development donated the land, Biosphere buildings and several other support and administrative buildings. The Philecology Foundation (a nonprofit research foundation founded by Ed Bass) pledged US$20 million for the ongoing science and operations.[104]

Current research[edit]

There are many small-scale research projects at Biosphere 2, as well as several large-scale research projects including:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Biosphere 2 - Fast Facts
  2. ^ Bahr, Jeff (2009) p.238
  3. ^ "Biosphere II Project facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Biosphere II Project". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2017-02-09.
  4. ^ Nelson, Mark; Burgess, Tony L; Alling, Abigail; Alvarez-Romo, Norberto; Dempster, William F; Walford, Roy L; Allen, John P (1993). "Using a Closed Ecological System to Study Earth's Biosphere". Bioscience. 43 (4): 225–236. doi:10.2307/1312123. JSTOR 1312123.
  5. ^ UASCIENCE Fast Facts
  6. ^ Nelson, Mark (2018). Pushing the Limits: Insights from Biosphere 2. Tucson AZ: University of Arizona. ISBN 978-0-8165-3732-7.
  7. ^ a b Marino, Bruno D.V; Mahato, Tilak Ram; Druitt, John W; Leigh, Linda; Lin, Guanghui; Russell, Robert M; Tubiello, Francesco N (1999). "The agricultural biome of Biosphere 2:". Ecological Engineering. 13: 199–234. doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00100-1.
  8. ^ Specials
  9. ^ John Allen, FLS. "Buckminster Fuller's Synergetic Algorithm and Challenges of the Twenty-First Century".
  10. ^ Paul Makovsky. "The Fuller Effect". Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  11. ^ Dempster, William (1994). "Methods for measurement and control of leakage in CELSS and their application and performance in the Biosphere 2 facility". Advances in Space Research. 14 (11): 331–335. Bibcode:1994AdSpR..14..331D. doi:10.1016/0273-1177(94)90318-2.
  12. ^ Dempster, William F (2008). "Tightly closed ecological systems reveal atmospheric subtleties – experience from Biosphere 2". Advances in Space Research. 42 (12): 1951–1956. Bibcode:2008AdSpR..42.1951D. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.03.105.
  13. ^ Zabel, Bernd; Hawes, Phil; Stuart, Hewitt; Marino, Bruno D.V (1999). "Construction and engineering of a created environment: Overview of the Biosphere 2 closed system". Ecological Engineering. 13: 43–63. doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00091-3.
  14. ^ Dempster, William F (1999). "Biosphere 2 engineering design". Ecological Engineering. 13: 31–42. doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00090-1.
  15. ^ Biospherics.org - 3. SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 TO APRIL 1, 1994 BIOSPHERE 2 ORGANIZATION
  16. ^ Turner, Christopher (Spring 2011). "Ingestion / Planet in a Bottle". Cabinet Magazine. Retrieved 2011-10-20.
  17. ^ Silverstone, S.E; Nelson, M (1996). "Food production and nutrition in Biosphere 2: Results from the first mission September 1991 to September 1993". Advances in Space Research. 18 (4–5): 49–61. Bibcode:1996AdSpR..18...49S. doi:10.1016/0273-1177(95)00861-8.
  18. ^ Harwood, Richard (1993). "There Is No Away". Biosphere 2 Newsletter. 3 (3): 9.
  19. ^ Walford, R. L; Mock, D; Verdery, R; MacCallum, T (2002). "Calorie restriction in biosphere 2: Alterations in physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical parameters in humans restricted for a 2-year period". The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 57 (6): B211–24. PMID 12023257.
  20. ^ Walford, R. L; Harris, S. B; Gunion, M. W (1992). "The calorically restricted low-fat nutrient-dense diet in Biosphere 2 significantly lowers blood glucose, total leukocyte count, cholesterol, and blood pressure in humans". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 89 (23): 11533–11537. Bibcode:1992PNAS...8911533W. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.23.11533. PMC 50586. PMID 1454844.
  21. ^ Weyer, Christian; Walford, Roy L; Harper, Inge T; Milner, Mike; MacCallum, Taber; Tataranni, P Antonio; Ravussin, Eric (2000). "Energy metabolism after 2 y of energy restriction: The Biosphere 2 experiment". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 72 (4): 946–953. doi:10.1093/ajcn/72.4.946. PMID 11010936.
  22. ^ a b Allen, J.P; Nelson, M; Alling, A (2003). "The legacy of biosphere 2 for the study of biospherics and closed ecological systems". Advances in Space Research. 31 (7): 1629–1639. Bibcode:2003AdSpR..31.1629A. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00103-0.
  23. ^ a b Allen, John (December 1991). Biosphere 2: The human experiment. ISBN 978-0140153927.
  24. ^ Nelson, M; Dempster, W. F (1995). "Living in space: Results from Biosphere 2's initial closure, an early testbed for closed ecological systems on Mars". Life Support & Biosphere Science : International Journal of Earth Space. 2 (2): 81–102. PMID 11538313.
  25. ^ Finn, M. 1996. Comparison of mangrove forest structure and function in a mesocosm and Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington D.C
  26. ^ Finn, Matt; Kangas, Patrick; Adey, Walter (1999). "Mangrove ecosystem development in Biosphere 2". Ecological Engineering. 13: 173–178. doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00097-4.
  27. ^ Nelson, Mark; Dempster, W.F; Allen, J.P (2009). "The water cycle in closed ecological systems: Perspectives from the Biosphere 2 and Laboratory Biosphere systems". Advances in Space Research. 44 (12): 1404–1412. Bibcode:2009AdSpR..44.1404N. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2009.06.008.
  28. ^ college-level textbook Biology by Neil Campbell and Jane Reece
  29. ^ Wetterer, J. K; Miller, S. E; Wheeler, D. E; Olson, C. A; Polhemus, D. A; Pitts, M; Ashton, I. W; Himler, A. G; Yospin, M. M; Helms, K. R; Harken, E. L; Gallaher, J; Dunning, C. E; Nelson, M; Litsinger, J; Southern, A; Burgess, T. L (1999). "Ecological Dominance by Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), an Invasive Tramp Ant, in Biosphere 2". The Florida Entomologist. 82 (3): 381–388. JSTOR 3496865.
  30. ^ Leigh, Linda S; Burgess, Tony; Marino, Bruno D.V; Wei, Yong Dan (1999). "Tropical rainforest biome of Biosphere 2: Structure, composition and results of the first 2 years of operation". Ecological Engineering. 13: 65–93. doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00092-5.
  31. ^ Cohen, J. E; Tilman, D (1996). "Biosphere 2 and Biodiversity--The Lessons So Far". Science. 274 (5290): 1150–1151. Bibcode:1996Sci...274.1150C. doi:10.1126/science.274.5290.1150.
  32. ^ Science Notes 2000 - Only the Lonely
  33. ^ Poynter, op. cit.
  34. ^ YouTube - Biosphere 2 crewmember & author Jane Poynter interview
  35. ^ Analog Studies for Long Duration Human Spaceflight. A Comprehensive Literature Review. Strasbourg, France.: (International Space University. 2009. pp. 11–29.
  36. ^ Poynter, pp.267-8
  37. ^ a b Nelson, M; Gray, K; Allen, J. P (2015). "Group dynamics challenges: Insights from Biosphere 2 experiments". Life Sciences in Space Research. 6: 79–86. Bibcode:2015LSSR....6...79N. doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2015.07.003. PMID 26256631.
  38. ^ Alling, A; Nelson, M; Silverstone, S; Van Thillo, M (2002). "Human factor observations of the Biosphere 2, 1991-1993, closed life support human experiment and its application to a long-term manned mission to Mars". Life Support & Biosphere Science : International Journal of Earth Space. 8 (2): 71–82. PMID 11987306.
  39. ^ Reider, Rebecca (2009). Dreaming the Biosphere. University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 9780826346742.
  40. ^ Poynter, p. 270
  41. ^ Poynter, p. 270, quoting Time Magazine.
  42. ^ a b Nelson, Mark. Pushing Our Limits: Insights from Biosphere 2. op. cit.
  43. ^ Redman, L. M; Ravussin, E (2011). "Caloric Restriction in Humans: Impact on Physiological, Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes". Antioxidants & Redox Signaling. 14 (2): 275–287. doi:10.1089/ars.2010.3253. PMC 3014770. PMID 20518700. ... despite the selective restriction in calories and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout the entire 2 years.
  44. ^ Poynter, pp.167-173
  45. ^ Poynter, p. 247.
  46. ^ Poynter, p.249
  47. ^ Harrison, Albert A; Clearwater, Yvonne A; McKay, Christopher P (January 1991). From Antarctica to outer space: Life in isolation and confinement. pp. 217–227. ISBN 9780387973104.
  48. ^ Demick, Jack; Takahashi, T; Wapner, Seymour; Takiji Yamamoto, C (1996-11-30). Handbook of Japan-United States Environment-Behavior Research: Toward a Transactional Approach. pp. 235–244. ISBN 9780306453403.
  49. ^ Nelson, Mark. Pushing our Limits. op. cit. p. 204.
  50. ^ Biosphere 2
  51. ^ Highfield, Roger (14 January 2004). "Big trouble in the bio bubble…". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group. Archived from the original on 6 January 2018. Retrieved 6 January 2017.
  52. ^ Alling, Abigail; Nelson, Mark; Silverstone, Sally (1993-09-23). Life under glass: The inside story of Biosphere 2. ISBN 978-1882428076.
  53. ^ Nelson, Mark (2018-02-27). Pushing Our Limits: Insights from Biosphere 2. ISBN 9780816537327.
  54. ^ Biosphere 2 Members 'aired out'
  55. ^ Dempster, William (June 24, 2017). "Biosphere 2 was science not a stunt". Vice Motherboard. Retrieved January 5, 2018.[dead link]
  56. ^ Odum, H. T. (1996). "Scales of ecological engineering". Ecological Engineering. 6: 7–19. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.456.1025.
  57. ^ a b c "BIOSPHERE 2: The Experiment". Biospherics.org. Retrieved 2017-01-14.
  58. ^ Walford, R. L; Bechtel, R; MacCallum, T; Paglia, D. E; Weber, L. J (1996). ""Biospheric medicine" as viewed from the two-year first closure of Biosphere 2". Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 67 (7): 609–17. PMID 8830939.
  59. ^ a b Nelson, M; Dempster, W; Alvarez-Romo, N; MacCallum, T (1994). "Atmospheric dynamics and bioregenerative technologies in a soil-based ecological life support system: Initial results from biosphere 2". Advances in Space Research. 14 (11): 417–426. Bibcode:1994AdSpR..14..417N. doi:10.1016/0273-1177(94)90331-X.
  60. ^ Broad, William J. (November 12, 1991). "Recycling Claim by Biosphere 2 Experiment Is Questioned". New York Times.
  61. ^ Nelson and Dempster, 1996, op cit.
  62. ^ Torbert, H. A.; Johnson, H. B. (2001). "Soil of the intensive agriculture biome of Biosphere 2". Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 56 (1): 4–11.
  63. ^ Severinghaus, Jeffrey P; Broecker, Wallace S; Dempster, William F; MacCallum, Taber; Wahlen, Martin (1994). "Oxygen loss in biosphere 2". Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 75 (3): 33. Bibcode:1994EOSTr..75...33S. doi:10.1029/94EO00285.
  64. ^ The project was put into receivership and an outside management team was installed for the receiver to turn around the floundering project. The reason for the dispute was threefold. Mismanagement of mission had caused terrible publicity, financial mismanagement and lack of research. People alleged gross financial mismanagement of the project, leading to a loss of $25 million in fiscal 1992. Poynter, pp. 325–26
  65. ^ a b Murphy, Tim (August 26, 2016). "Trump's Campaign CEO Ran a Secretive Sci-Fi Project in the Arizona Desert". Mother Jones.
  66. ^ "Two Former Biosphere Workers Are Accused of Sabotaging Dome". The New York Times. April 5, 1994. Retrieved April 26, 2010.
  67. ^ a b de Lama, George (April 16, 1994). "Biosphere 2 Proves A Hothouse For Trouble: Project Yields A Crop Of Rivalry, Confusion". Chicago Tribune.
  68. ^ The Donella Meadows Archive: Biosphere 2 Teaches Us Another Lesson
  69. ^ Stern, Eric (May 24, 1996). "Manager vowed revenge on Alling, her lawyer says". Tucson Citizen.
  70. ^ "Abigail Kingsley Alling Resume". Retrieved January 6, 2018.
  71. ^ Cole, Samantha (November 15, 2016). "The Strange History of Steve Bannon and the Biosphere 2 Experiment". Vice: Motherboard.
  72. ^ Mayer, Ralo. "How Steve Bannon Wrecked a World well before he went for this one". Retrieved January 7, 2018.
  73. ^ For a complete list of Biosphere 2 scientific papers and publications see "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2008-12-25. Retrieved 2009-02-19..
  74. ^ For research projects and consultants during the first closure experiment: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-01-10. Retrieved 2009-02-19.
  75. ^ Reider, Rebecca. Dreaming the Biosphere. op. cit.
  76. ^ Allen, J (1997). "Biospheric theory and report on overall Biosphere 2 design and performance". Life Support & Biosphere Science : International Journal of Earth Space. 4 (3–4): 95–108. PMID 11542295.
  77. ^ Discover, May 1987.
  78. ^ Ecology, 73(2), 1992, p.713
  79. ^ Ibid.
  80. ^ Nelson, M. (1999). "Bioregenerative recycle of wastewater in Biosphere 2 using a created wetland: two year results". Ecological Engineering. 13: 189–197. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.504.364.
  81. ^ Nelson, Mark. 1998. Limestone Wetland Mesocosm for Recycling Saline Wastewater in Coastal Yucatan, Mexico. PhD dissertation, University of Florida. http://www.cep.ees.ufl.edu/emergy/documents/dissertations_theses/Nelson_1998_Dissertation.pdf
  82. ^ Leigh, Leigh (1999). Basis for Rainforest Diversity and Biosphere 2. University of Florida Ph.D. Dissertation.
  83. ^ "The Biosphere Foundation".
  84. ^ "Paragon Space Development Corporation". Retrieved January 3, 2018.
  85. ^ Cooper, Marc. "Take This Terrarium and Shove It", Village Voice, 1991.
  86. ^ Poynter, pp. 17–20
  87. ^ "The Institute of Ecotechnics". Retrieved 2 January 2018.
  88. ^ Allen, J; Parrish, T; Nelson, M (1984). "The Institute of Ecotechnics An institute devoted to developing the discipline of relating technosphere to biosphere". The Environmentalist. 4 (3): 205–218. doi:10.1016/S0251-1088(84)92033-3.
  89. ^ Nelson, Mark. Pushing our Limits: Insights from Biosphere 2. op. cit.
  90. ^ Phoenix New Times, June 19, 1991.
  91. ^ Poynter, Jane. The Human Experiment: Two Years and Twenty Minutes Inside Biosphere 2. op. cit.
  92. ^ Odum, H.T. "Scales of Ecological Engineering". Op. Cit.
  93. ^ Dr. Michael Crow, Vice-Provost of Columbia University, Press Release December 20, 1994.
  94. ^ Broad, William J. (1996-11-19). "Paradise Lost: Biosphere Retooled as Atmospheric Nightmare". The New York Times.
  95. ^ Arenson, Karen W. (2003-09-09). "Columbia University Ends Its Association With Biosphere 2". The New York Times.
  96. ^ Marino, B. D. V.; Odum, H. T. (1999). "Biosphere 2, Introduction and research progress". Ecological Engineering. 13: 3–14. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.539.7639.
  97. ^ Crook, Kendra. "Columbia University Establishes 10 Earth Institute Scholarships". Columbia News. Columbia University. Retrieved 28 November 2016.
  98. ^ Langdon, Chris; Takahashi, Taro; Sweeney, Colm; Chipman, Dave; Goddard, John; Marubini, Francesca; Aceves, Heather; Barnett, Heidi; Atkinson, Marlin J (2000). "Effect of calcium carbonate saturation state on the calcification rate of an experimental coral reef". Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 14 (2): 639–654. Bibcode:2000GBioC..14..639L. doi:10.1029/1999GB001195.
  99. ^ Harris, W.C; Graumlich, Lisa. "Biosphere 2: sustainable research for a sustainable planet". Retrieved 10 December 2017.
  100. ^ Lin, Guanghui; Adams, John; Farnsworth, Blake; Wei, Yongdan; Marino, Bruno D. V; Berry, Joseph A (1999). "Ecosystem carbon exchange in two terrestrial ecosystem mesocosms under changing atmospheric CO 2 concentrations". Oecologia. 119 (1): 97–108. Bibcode:1999Oecol.119...97L. doi:10.1007/s004420050765. PMID 28308165.
  101. ^ Trembath-Reichert, Elizabeth (2005-02-04). "Biosphere 2 Now for Sale to Highest Bidder". Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved 2016-03-13.
  102. ^ "Biosphere 2 bubble sold to developers". MSNBC. 2007-06-05.
  103. ^ Ryman, Anne (2007-06-26). "UA to take over Biosphere 2 research". The Arizona Republic.
  104. ^ a b "Biosphere 2 to Have a Permanent Home With the UA". Office of University Communications, The University of Arizona. 2011-06-27. Retrieved 2011-06-27.
  105. ^ McKay, Betsy (2017-05-14). "A Farm Grows in the City". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
  106. ^ Washington, John (March 2017). "Scaling Earth". Edible Baja Arizona. p. 102.
Bibliography

External links[edit]