If I want to plant more trees = deeper roots, in a place where they used to sow winter grains = shallow roots,
I have to change the depth of the soil.
Example: all people who planted avocadoes is thin soil got their trees dead after a few years.
So I want to break the old rock, quite easy here (except when grey basalt!), so that humic acids can do their job, and roots can go down.
I have seen that some trees would be great, like marula, BUT they need a lot of space as their roots need to go MUCH further than their crown. In that case, you only get savanna, as trees cannot grow close to another.
Even for more conventional tree crops, I can plant more if roots can go down, yes?
So: carbon fossile loss versus gaining afterward.... More roots and more trunks and branches.
Question to Eric: do you speak about ground work to install perenial crops? Is it also a sort of solution for a wise use of the left fossile energy we have? Is the ratio of input and output worthwhile at greater range than a little propertie?
Also, is the type of ground a common reason for farmers going on with annual crops?
We want to imitate nature, but to produce more food and other useful stuff than nature. Here, only pines can go down rock cracks and even break rocks. And when they burn, they fix more carbon, because it is the only pine that re-grow after a fire. They did also provide wood for building, but now they are protected.
No income from them, and we need to plant things that the ground is not made for....
Xisca - pics! Dry subtropical Mediterranean - My project However loud I tell it, this is never a truth, only my experience...
I do think making improvements to allow better kinds of agriculture is a good use of remaining fossil fuel. Or even better of biodiesel or vegetable oil fuel. I can't speak to the particular soils and situations in your area, but a savanna is still a really wonderful thing, Including in terms of carbon.