Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.

Googling for fun.

Let's enter into GOOGLE the following search term:

[b]Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+]

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.

Googling for fun.

Let's enter into GOOGLE the following search term:

Chemistry isn't Google.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+]

Wrong.

Im a BM wrote:
Actually, it is CORRECT, and anyone who is intellectually competent enough can Google the search term "pH = -log[H+]" tp confirm this.[/b]

Im a BM wrote:
FOLLOWING THE RULES OF SCIENCE

Im a BM wrote:
Define your terms? or Cite your evidence?

Im a BM wrote:
It is true that you can't really have any science unless you define your terms at some point in the process.

Im a BM wrote:
It is also true that you can't really have any science unless you have some EVIDENCE you can cite.

Im a BM wrote:
I think they call it the "Scientific Method" or something.

Im a BM wrote:
There is something about acquiring evidence in a reproducible manner, so that others might know where the facts all flow from.

Im a BM wrote:
Let's see... In my 1998 paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY (YUP, it's a REAL thing!), I cited about 170 peer-reviewed scientific papers so that others might know where THEY could find the evidence.

Im a BM wrote:
I'll admit, 170 different papers is a LOT for just one paper to be citing. But my paper was 31 pages long in a combined research/review article. Longer than your average paper.

Im a BM wrote:
But folks weren't expected to just take my word for it. The methodology had to be reproducible for someone else to follow, find comparable evidence, and see if they reach a comparable conclusion.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, scientists are expected to define their terms once in a while.

Im a BM wrote:
For an introductory textbook, EVERY term is new to the student. So, a textbook will define a term, ONCE. After that, they just go ahead and use the term without defining it every time.

Im a BM wrote:
For my paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, there were only a handful of terms I was using that hadn't already been defined for everyone in the introductory textbooks.

Im a BM wrote:
"Extended phenotype" for example. It was a very important concept in my paper, but not very well known to the average scientist. So when I got to discussing the extended phenotype, I had to define what it meant. And I had to cite Richard Dawkins as the author who coined the term.

Im a BM wrote:
But I sure as hell wasn't expected to DEFINE organic carbon to be able to discuss it. If you don't know how to look that one up, who are you kidding when you think you could possibly understand anything ELSE in the paper?

Im a BM wrote:
But there is a wee bit of hypocrisy from the "Define your terms!" trolls here at climate-debate.com

Tell me that the definition of pH = -log[H+] is WRONG.

Im a BM wrote:
After I have, once again, defined my term in the same way all the chemistry textbooks do. pH IS the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion (H+) molarity.

Im a BM wrote:
Define YOUR terms, in that case!

You cannot define your terms, because you have NO IDEA what pH is.

Im a BM wrote:
Some kind of "ratio", right?

Im a BM wrote:
You are not a chemist, Into the Night.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.

Googling for fun.

Let's enter into GOOGLE the following search term:

Chemistry isn't Google.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+]

Wrong.

Im a BM wrote:
The Phantom Inertial Gas (PIG) Hypothesis

Im a BM wrote:
As everyone knows, inertia is not a VECTOR quantity, it is a SCALAR quantity.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't need to know which direction that phantom gas molecule is headed, just how much it weighs and how fast its going.

Im a BM wrote:
Those phantom inertial gases (PIGs) are why it takes heat so long to get from the surface of the Earth to outer space.

Im a BM wrote:
The phantom inertia of these gases is obviously a function of their mass and velocity, but you have to take a good look at molecular geometry, because each atom in a molecule has its OWN phantom inertia in multiple vibrational modes.

Im a BM wrote:
I heard you can PREDICT which gases have the most and the least phantom inertia if you understand the symmetry of the molecular structure, and you can rank them for how much phantom inertia they contribute, gram per gram.

Im a BM wrote:
Like the way they pretend they can predict the global warming potential of the so called "greenhouse gases" according to their infrared absorption properties.

Im a BM wrote:
So, highest praises for the PIG hypothesis.

It is worthy of much future discussion.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The Phantom Inertial Gas (PIG) Hypothesis

There is no such thing. A theory is not a hypothesis.

Im a BM wrote:
As everyone knows, inertia is not a VECTOR quantity, it is a SCALAR quantity.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Inertia is not a value.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't need to know which direction that phantom gas molecule is headed, just how much it weighs and how fast its going.

No such thing.

Im a BM wrote:
Those phantom inertial gases (PIGs) are why it takes heat so long to get from the surface of the Earth to outer space.

You cannot trap heat. No such thing as 'phantom inertial gases'.

Im a BM wrote:
The phantom inertia of these gases is obviously a function of their mass and velocity, but you have to take a good look at molecular geometry, because each atom in a molecule has its OWN phantom inertia in multiple vibrational modes.

So now you discard Newton's law of motion.

Im a BM wrote:
I heard you can PREDICT which gases have the most and the least phantom inertia if you understand the symmetry of the molecular structure, and you can rank them for how much phantom inertia they contribute, gram per gram.

Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Like the way they pretend they can predict the global warming potential of the so called "greenhouse gases" according to their infrared absorption properties.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
So, highest praises for the PIG hypothesis.

It is worthy of much future discussion.

Buzzwords are not ready for any discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
Meet the #1 MOST ACTIVE MEMBER at climate-debate.com

Im a BM wrote:
"Inertia is not a value" - Into the Night

Right. It is quantifiable. Isn't inertia a function of "momentum" = mv (mass times velocity?

Im a BM wrote:
Well, Google has its own opinion.

Im a BM wrote:
"In a mathematical context, inertia is often represented by mass (m) in Newton's second law of motion, F = ma..."

Im a BM wrote:
But Into the Night says "Inertia is not a value."

Im a BM wrote:
Same reason climate cannot change.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate is not a "value" either, according to Into the Night.

Im a BM wrote:
So PHANTOM inertia is some kind of phantom not-a-value thing.

Im a BM wrote:
I won't bother asking Into the Night what he believes "a value" is because the only scientific explanation he is capable of offering would be "RQAA".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.

Googling for fun.

Let's enter into GOOGLE the following search term:

Chemistry isn't Google.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+]

Wrong.

climate scientist wrote:
Hi everyone

New paper just out in Nature here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

The essentials have been covered in this article (probably best not to take the title too seriously!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38146248

The authors have compiled data from 49 different field experiments around the world on soil carbon responses to warming. They find that under a 'business-as-usual' scenario of emissions and warming, soils could lose around 55 Pg C by 2050, although the uncertainty on this value is very high. This is around 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion during this period, and therefore, if realised, would very likely exacerbate climate change (i.e. would act as a positive feedback on the system).

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Indeed melting permafrost generating CO2 is a significant risk for adding weight to the atmosphere. There's no denying it.

Wouldn't trees consuming nitrogen from soil be taking nitrogen out of the cycle?

I don't see how any farming practice can bring about a net increase in soil organic matter. Can you elaborate? There can be a net increase in a local region, if organic matter is taken from outside that local region and deposited there, is still my thinking. Maybe creative crop rotation can help minimize losses?

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Indeed melting permafrost generating CO2 is a significant risk for adding weight to the atmosphere. There's no denying it.

Wouldn't trees consuming nitrogen from soil be taking nitrogen out of the cycle?

I don't see how any farming practice can bring about a net increase in soil organic matter. Can you elaborate? There can be a net increase in a local region, if organic matter is taken from outside that local region and deposited there, is still my thinking. Maybe creative crop rotation can help minimize losses?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Indeed melting permafrost generating CO2 is a significant risk for adding weight to the atmosphere. There's no denying it.

Wouldn't trees consuming nitrogen from soil be taking nitrogen out of the cycle?

I don't see how any farming practice can bring about a net increase in soil organic matter. Can you elaborate? There can be a net increase in a local region, if organic matter is taken from outside that local region and deposited there, is still my thinking. Maybe creative crop rotation can help minimize losses?

On the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, as you and Swan created six-feet-long posts of irrelevant discussion, you may have missed one of the new papers (actually related to the thread topic) that cited me this year.

In the European Journal of Soil Science, the 2025 paper by Zhenglin Zhang, "Introduction of a fallow year to continuous rice systems enhances crop soil nitrogen uptake"

The term "fallow" refers to an ancient practice of restoring soil organic matter content. In this new paper's case, it was in rice paddies. Where I live, one of the more common fallow practices is to plant purple vetch, a nitrogen-fixing shrub. Rather than harvest it, they just plow it into the soil, adding both organic carbon and "fixed" atmospheric nitrogen to the soil. INCREASING the soil's content of both organic carbon and bioavailable nitrogen.

As far as trees "taking nitrogen out of the cycle" by consuming it from the soil, I have no idea what the question means. Nitrogen is still in the cycle, regardless of which specific chemical form it is in, unless it actually leaves the system somehow. If nitrogen goes from the soil into the tree, it is still very much in the system and part of the "nitrogen cycle".

Hey, check out the 1995 paper in Nature by Terry Chapin - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". It includes an excellent visual aide diagram of the nitrogen cycle, including the "new cog" I am credited with discovering. It could help you know what you are referring to when you say "nitrogen cycle", and it explains why plants taking nitrogen from the soil keeps nitrogen very much in the cycle.

Fallowing is just one of many agricultural practices that humans use to increase soil organic matter content.

Perhaps the best example would be the "plaggen sods" human farmers created in places such as conifer forests of Europe. Farmers often achieved a 500-1000% increase in topsoil organic matter content for their farms this way, but it took a lot of work. They transformed poor soils that could only support a conifer forest into rich agricultural soils with high organic matter content.

Even dairy farmers have practices to increase soil organic matter content. It doesn't always require a plow. It does require a decision to be made about priorities. Postpone short term profit to make a long term investment in the soil. But having a fallow year costs a farmer an entire year's crop yield. Many farmers are too close to the edge of bankruptcy to have the luxury of waiting a whole year before they can use the field again.

This was the inspiration for the give-methamphetamine-to-the-slave metaphor. If master's life is threatened unless he can get maximum labor from that slave in one day, he may feel he has no choice but to force his slave to consume methamphetamine. Bad for the long term health of the slave, but master has more immediate concerns to deal with.

Even regarding Zhang's paper (citing my research), how many rice farmers can afford to allow their paddies to go fallow for a year?

Back when people used to believe that government had some kind of role in these things, the larger society could support the farmer's choice to maintain the sustainable productivity of his soil by using more costly practices. They could offer a tax break or subsidy, knowing that it was in society's long term interest to ensure that our soils can continue to produce food for future generations.

Even so, a population of nine billion is really pushing it as far as sustainable productivity is concerned. It kind of forces us to go ahead and give the slave methamphetamine, even though we know it will shorten the slave's life.

I remember vividly a conversation I had with a slash-and-burn peasant farmer who was squatting on someone else's property with his little farm. He was terrified that I was there to enforce the law and he was in big trouble. I just wanted to see how he was doing it, to better understand my task as a Peace Corps volunteer in the forestry program. The farmer was practically in tears as he told me that he fully understands how deforestation is causing the rivers to dry up in the summer. He was aware that if he could afford to do it differently, he could farm in a manner that provokes less erosion and less loss of soil organic matter. But he was very poor and he had a family to feed. In the situation he found himself, he made the only choice that made sense to him. And he was terrified that he would go to jail and his family would starve.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Indeed melting permafrost generating CO2 is a significant risk for adding weight to the atmosphere. There's no denying it.

Wouldn't trees consuming nitrogen from soil be taking nitrogen out of the cycle?

I don't see how any farming practice can bring about a net increase in soil organic matter. Can you elaborate? There can be a net increase in a local region, if organic matter is taken from outside that local region and deposited there, is still my thinking. Maybe creative crop rotation can help minimize losses?

On the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, as you and Swan created six-feet-long posts of irrelevant discussion, you may have missed one of the new papers (actually related to the thread topic) that cited me this year.

In the European Journal of Soil Science, the 2025 paper by Zhenglin Zhang, "Introduction of a fallow year to continuous rice systems enhances crop soil nitrogen uptake"

The term "fallow" refers to an ancient practice of restoring soil organic matter content. In this new paper's case, it was in rice paddies. Where I live, one of the more common fallow practices is to plant purple vetch, a nitrogen-fixing shrub. Rather than harvest it, they just plow it into the soil, adding both organic carbon and "fixed" atmospheric nitrogen to the soil. INCREASING the soil's content of both organic carbon and bioavailable nitrogen.

As far as trees "taking nitrogen out of the cycle" by consuming it from the soil, I have no idea what the question means. Nitrogen is still in the cycle, regardless of which specific chemical form it is in, unless it actually leaves the system somehow. If nitrogen goes from the soil into the tree, it is still very much in the system and part of the "nitrogen cycle".

Hey, check out the 1995 paper in Nature by Terry Chapin - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". It includes an excellent visual aide diagram of the nitrogen cycle, including the "new cog" I am credited with discovering. It could help you know what you are referring to when you say "nitrogen cycle", and it explains why plants taking nitrogen from the soil keeps nitrogen very much in the cycle.

Fallowing is just one of many agricultural practices that humans use to increase soil organic matter content.

Perhaps the best example would be the "plaggen sods" human farmers created in places such as conifer forests of Europe. Farmers often achieved a 500-1000% increase in topsoil organic matter content for their farms this way, but it took a lot of work. They transformed poor soils that could only support a conifer forest into rich agricultural soils with high organic matter content.

Even dairy farmers have practices to increase soil organic matter content. It doesn't always require a plow. It does require a decision to be made about priorities. Postpone short term profit to make a long term investment in the soil. But having a fallow year costs a farmer an entire year's crop yield. Many farmers are too close to the edge of bankruptcy to have the luxury of waiting a whole year before they can use the field again.

This was the inspiration for the give-methamphetamine-to-the-slave metaphor. If master's life is threatened unless he can get maximum labor from that slave in one day, he may feel he has no choice but to force his slave to consume methamphetamine. Bad for the long term health of the slave, but master has more immediate concerns to deal with.

Even regarding Zhang's paper (citing my research), how many rice farmers can afford to allow their paddies to go fallow for a year?

Back when people used to believe that government had some kind of role in these things, the larger society could support the farmer's choice to maintain the sustainable productivity of his soil by using more costly practices. They could offer a tax break or subsidy, knowing that it was in society's long term interest to ensure that our soils can continue to produce food for future generations.

Even so, a population of nine billion is really pushing it as far as sustainable productivity is concerned. It kind of forces us to go ahead and give the slave methamphetamine, even though we know it will shorten the slave's life.

I remember vividly a conversation I had with a slash-and-burn peasant farmer who was squatting on someone else's property with his little farm. He was terrified that I was there to enforce the law and he was in big trouble. I just wanted to see how he was doing it, to better understand my task as a Peace Corps volunteer in the forestry program. The farmer was practically in tears as he told me that he fully understands how deforestation is causing the rivers to dry up in the summer. He was aware that if he could afford to do it differently, he could farm in a manner that provokes less erosion and less loss of soil organic matter. But he was very poor and he had a family to feed. In the situation he found himself, he made the only choice that made sense to him. And he was terrified that he would go to jail and his family would starve.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Indeed melting permafrost generating CO2 is a significant risk for adding weight to the atmosphere. There's no denying it.

Wouldn't trees consuming nitrogen from soil be taking nitrogen out of the cycle?

I don't see how any farming practice can bring about a net increase in soil organic matter. Can you elaborate? There can be a net increase in a local region, if organic matter is taken from outside that local region and deposited there, is still my thinking. Maybe creative crop rotation can help minimize losses?

On the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, as you and Swan created six-feet-long posts of irrelevant discussion, you may have missed one of the new papers (actually related to the thread topic) that cited me this year.

In the European Journal of Soil Science, the 2025 paper by Zhenglin Zhang, "Introduction of a fallow year to continuous rice systems enhances crop soil nitrogen uptake"

The term "fallow" refers to an ancient practice of restoring soil organic matter content. In this new paper's case, it was in rice paddies. Where I live, one of the more common fallow practices is to plant purple vetch, a nitrogen-fixing shrub. Rather than harvest it, they just plow it into the soil, adding both organic carbon and "fixed" atmospheric nitrogen to the soil. INCREASING the soil's content of both organic carbon and bioavailable nitrogen.

As far as trees "taking nitrogen out of the cycle" by consuming it from the soil, I have no idea what the question means. Nitrogen is still in the cycle, regardless of which specific chemical form it is in, unless it actually leaves the system somehow. If nitrogen goes from the soil into the tree, it is still very much in the system and part of the "nitrogen cycle".

Hey, check out the 1995 paper in Nature by Terry Chapin - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". It includes an excellent visual aide diagram of the nitrogen cycle, including the "new cog" I am credited with discovering. It could help you know what you are referring to when you say "nitrogen cycle", and it explains why plants taking nitrogen from the soil keeps nitrogen very much in the cycle.

Fallowing is just one of many agricultural practices that humans use to increase soil organic matter content.

Perhaps the best example would be the "plaggen sods" human farmers created in places such as conifer forests of Europe. Farmers often achieved a 500-1000% increase in topsoil organic matter content for their farms this way, but it took a lot of work. They transformed poor soils that could only support a conifer forest into rich agricultural soils with high organic matter content.

Even dairy farmers have practices to increase soil organic matter content. It doesn't always require a plow. It does require a decision to be made about priorities. Postpone short term profit to make a long term investment in the soil. But having a fallow year costs a farmer an entire year's crop yield. Many farmers are too close to the edge of bankruptcy to have the luxury of waiting a whole year before they can use the field again.

This was the inspiration for the give-methamphetamine-to-the-slave metaphor. If master's life is threatened unless he can get maximum labor from that slave in one day, he may feel he has no choice but to force his slave to consume methamphetamine. Bad for the long term health of the slave, but master has more immediate concerns to deal with.

Even regarding Zhang's paper (citing my research), how many rice farmers can afford to allow their paddies to go fallow for a year?

Back when people used to believe that government had some kind of role in these things, the larger society could support the farmer's choice to maintain the sustainable productivity of his soil by using more costly practices. They could offer a tax break or subsidy, knowing that it was in society's long term interest to ensure that our soils can continue to produce food for future generations.

Even so, a population of nine billion is really pushing it as far as sustainable productivity is concerned. It kind of forces us to go ahead and give the slave methamphetamine, even though we know it will shorten the slave's life.

I remember vividly a conversation I had with a slash-and-burn peasant farmer who was squatting on someone else's property with his little farm. He was terrified that I was there to enforce the law and he was in big trouble. I just wanted to see how he was doing it, to better understand my task as a Peace Corps volunteer in the forestry program. The farmer was practically in tears as he told me that he fully understands how deforestation is causing the rivers to dry up in the summer. He was aware that if he could afford to do it differently, he could farm in a manner that provokes less erosion and less loss of soil organic matter. But he was very poor and he had a family to feed. In the situation he found himself, he made the only choice that made sense to him. And he was terrified that he would go to jail and his family would starve.

If you plant a purple vetch, then plow it into the ground, the soil organic matter may stay constant (break even), but I don't see how it would increase. It may also loosen the organic matter that had been more clumped together, making it easier to absorb by the next crop, if there is one.

If trees are sucking up nitrogen, and those trees are living 100 years, aren't they tying up much of that nitrogen from flowing through the cycle for 100 years?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tomato plants don't actually absorb nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil.

But peas do. Legumes sound like good example to answer my question, how is it even possible to plant a crop that will add nutrients to soil?

It would be nice if sealover would have used his soil science expertise to answer my question, is it possible for crops to add nutrients to soil?

Yes, legumes.

Those simple 2 words would have helped me. It only took me 1 question to chat GPT to get a good answer.

But I come here and get walls of spam, repetitious post scrambling, semantics about "organic matter," and a whole lot of condescending know it all attitude.

Maybe he did answer, if he did I missed it because it got buried.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tomato plants don't actually absorb nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil.

But peas do. Legumes sound like good example to answer my question, how is it even possible to plant a crop that will add nutrients to soil?

It would be nice if sealover would have used his soil science expertise to answer my question, is it possible for crops to add nutrients to soil?

Yes, legumes.

Those simple 2 words would have helped me. It only took me 1 question to chat GPT to get a good answer.

But I come here and get walls of spam, repetitious post scrambling, semantics about "organic matter," and a whole lot of condescending know it all attitude.

Maybe he did answer, if he did I missed it because it got buried.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tomato plants don't actually absorb nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil.

But peas do. Legumes sound like good example to answer my question, how is it even possible to plant a crop that will add nutrients to soil?

It would be nice if sealover would have used his soil science expertise to answer my question, is it possible for crops to add nutrients to soil?

Yes, legumes.

Those simple 2 words would have helped me. It only took me 1 question to chat GPT to get a good answer.

But I come here and get walls of spam, repetitious post scrambling, semantics about "organic matter," and a whole lot of condescending know it all attitude.

Maybe he did answer, if he did I missed it because it got buried.

Tomato plants most certainly do absorb Nitrogen from the air during a storm though they add it to the green mass of the plant. That said at least you have accepted that you were wrong about Nitrogen fixing.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tomato plants don't actually absorb nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil.

But peas do. Legumes sound like good example to answer my question, how is it even possible to plant a crop that will add nutrients to soil?

It would be nice if sealover would have used his soil science expertise to answer my question, is it possible for crops to add nutrients to soil?

Yes, legumes.

Those simple 2 words would have helped me. It only took me 1 question to chat GPT to get a good answer.

But I come here and get walls of spam, repetitious post scrambling, semantics about "organic matter," and a whole lot of condescending know it all attitude.

Maybe he did answer, if he did I missed it because it got buried.

Tomato plants most certainly do absorb Nitrogen from the air during a storm though they add it to the green mass of the plant. That said at least you have accepted that you were wrong about Nitrogen fixing.

Not directly...

" Tomato plants do not absorb nitrogen directly from the air.

Here's why:

The nitrogen in the air is in the form of N₂ gas, which is very stable and not usable by most plants directly.
Only certain nitrogen-fixing organisms, like rhizobia bacteria found in legume root nodules, can convert atmospheric nitrogen into a usable form (like ammonia).
Tomato plants are not legumes and do not form symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
How tomatoes get nitrogen:
They absorb nitrogen from the soil in the form of nitrate (NO₃⁻) and ammonium (NH₄⁺).
That nitrogen typically comes from decomposed organic matter, fertilizers, or compost."

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tomato plants don't actually absorb nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil.

But peas do. Legumes sound like good example to answer my question, how is it even possible to plant a crop that will add nutrients to soil?

It would be nice if sealover would have used his soil science expertise to answer my question, is it possible for crops to add nutrients to soil?

Yes, legumes.

Those simple 2 words would have helped me. It only took me 1 question to chat GPT to get a good answer.

But I come here and get walls of spam, repetitious post scrambling, semantics about "organic matter," and a whole lot of condescending know it all attitude.

Maybe he did answer, if he did I missed it because it got buried.

Tomato plants most certainly do absorb Nitrogen from the air during a storm though they add it to the green mass of the plant. That said at least you have accepted that you were wrong about Nitrogen fixing.

Not directly...

" Tomato plants do not absorb nitrogen directly from the air.

Here's why:

The nitrogen in the air is in the form of N₂ gas, which is very stable and not usable by most plants directly.
Only certain nitrogen-fixing organisms, like rhizobia bacteria found in legume root nodules, can convert atmospheric nitrogen into a usable form (like ammonia).
Tomato plants are not legumes and do not form symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
How tomatoes get nitrogen:
They absorb nitrogen from the soil in the form of nitrate (NO₃⁻) and ammonium (NH₄⁺).
That nitrogen typically comes from decomposed organic matter, fertilizers, or compost."

In reality that eludes you, tomato plants, like other plants, can absorb nitrogen during a thunderstorm. The lightning during a thunderstorm creates a chemical reaction that converts atmospheric nitrogen into nitrates, which are then dissolved in rainwater and absorbed by the soil and plants. This process, called nitrogen fixation, provides plants with a usable form of nitrogen, making thunderstorms beneficial for plant growth.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research into accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Indeed melting permafrost generating CO2 is a significant risk for adding weight to the atmosphere. There's no denying it.

Wouldn't trees consuming nitrogen from soil be taking nitrogen out of the cycle?

I don't see how any farming practice can bring about a net increase in soil organic matter. Can you elaborate? There can be a net increase in a local region, if organic matter is taken from outside that local region and deposited there, is still my thinking. Maybe creative crop rotation can help minimize losses?

On the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, as you and Swan created six-feet-long posts of irrelevant discussion, you may have missed one of the new papers (actually related to the thread topic) that cited me this year.

In the European Journal of Soil Science, the 2025 paper by Zhenglin Zhang, "Introduction of a fallow year to continuous rice systems enhances crop soil nitrogen uptake"

The term "fallow" refers to an ancient practice of restoring soil organic matter content. In this new paper's case, it was in rice paddies. Where I live, one of the more common fallow practices is to plant purple vetch, a nitrogen-fixing shrub. Rather than harvest it, they just plow it into the soil, adding both organic carbon and "fixed" atmospheric nitrogen to the soil. INCREASING the soil's content of both organic carbon and bioavailable nitrogen.

As far as trees "taking nitrogen out of the cycle" by consuming it from the soil, I have no idea what the question means. Nitrogen is still in the cycle, regardless of which specific chemical form it is in, unless it actually leaves the system somehow. If nitrogen goes from the soil into the tree, it is still very much in the system and part of the "nitrogen cycle".

Hey, check out the 1995 paper in Nature by Terry Chapin - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". It includes an excellent visual aide diagram of the nitrogen cycle, including the "new cog" I am credited with discovering. It could help you know what you are referring to when you say "nitrogen cycle", and it explains why plants taking nitrogen from the soil keeps nitrogen very much in the cycle.

Fallowing is just one of many agricultural practices that humans use to increase soil organic matter content.

Perhaps the best example would be the "plaggen sods" human farmers created in places such as conifer forests of Europe. Farmers often achieved a 500-1000% increase in topsoil organic matter content for their farms this way, but it took a lot of work. They transformed poor soils that could only support a conifer forest into rich agricultural soils with high organic matter content.

Even dairy farmers have practices to increase soil organic matter content. It doesn't always require a plow. It does require a decision to be made about priorities. Postpone short term profit to make a long term investment in the soil. But having a fallow year costs a farmer an entire year's crop yield. Many farmers are too close to the edge of bankruptcy to have the luxury of waiting a whole year before they can use the field again.

This was the inspiration for the give-methamphetamine-to-the-slave metaphor. If master's life is threatened unless he can get maximum labor from that slave in one day, he may feel he has no choice but to force his slave to consume methamphetamine. Bad for the long term health of the slave, but master has more immediate concerns to deal with.

Even regarding Zhang's paper (citing my research), how many rice farmers can afford to allow their paddies to go fallow for a year?

Back when people used to believe that government had some kind of role in these things, the larger society could support the farmer's choice to maintain the sustainable productivity of his soil by using more costly practices. They could offer a tax break or subsidy, knowing that it was in society's long term interest to ensure that our soils can continue to produce food for future generations.

Even so, a population of nine billion is really pushing it as far as sustainable productivity is concerned. It kind of forces us to go ahead and give the slave methamphetamine, even though we know it will shorten the slave's life.

I remember vividly a conversation I had with a slash-and-burn peasant farmer who was squatting on someone else's property with his little farm. He was terrified that I was there to enforce the law and he was in big trouble. I just wanted to see how he was doing it, to better understand my task as a Peace Corps volunteer in the forestry program. The farmer was practically in tears as he told me that he fully understands how deforestation is causing the rivers to dry up in the summer. He was aware that if he could afford to do it differently, he could farm in a manner that provokes less erosion and less loss of soil organic matter. But he was very poor and he had a family to feed. In the situation he found himself, he made the only choice that made sense to him. And he was terrified that he would go to jail and his family would starve.

If you plant a purple vetch, then plow it into the ground, the soil organic matter may stay constant (break even), but I don't see how it would increase. It may also loosen the organic matter that had been more clumped together, making it easier to absorb by the next crop, if there is one.

If trees are sucking up nitrogen, and those trees are living 100 years, aren't they tying up much of that nitrogen from flowing through the cycle for 100 years?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research int accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Indeed melting permafrost generating CO2 is a significant risk for adding weight to the atmosphere. There's no denying it.

Wouldn't trees consuming nitrogen from soil be taking nitrogen out of the cycle?

I don't see how any farming practice can bring about a net increase in soil organic matter. Can you elaborate? There can be a net increase in a local region, if organic matter is taken from outside that local region and deposited there, is still my thinking. Maybe creative crop rotation can help minimize losses?

On the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, as you and Swan created six-feet-long posts of irrelevant discussion, you may have missed one of the new papers (actually related to the thread topic) that cited me this year.

In the European Journal of Soil Science, the 2025 paper by Zhenglin Zhang, "Introduction of a fallow year to continuous rice systems enhances crop soil nitrogen uptake"

The term "fallow" refers to an ancient practice of restoring soil organic matter content. In this new paper's case, it was in rice paddies. Where I live, one of the more common fallow practices is to plant purple vetch, a nitrogen-fixing shrub. Rather than harvest it, they just plow it into the soil, adding both organic carbon and "fixed" atmospheric nitrogen to the soil. INCREASING the soil's content of both organic carbon and bioavailable nitrogen.

As far as trees "taking nitrogen out of the cycle" by consuming it from the soil, I have no idea what the question means. Nitrogen is still in the cycle, regardless of which specific chemical form it is in, unless it actually leaves the system somehow. If nitrogen goes from the soil into the tree, it is still very much in the system and part of the "nitrogen cycle".

Hey, check out the 1995 paper in Nature by Terry Chapin - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". It includes an excellent visual aide diagram of the nitrogen cycle, including the "new cog" I am credited with discovering. It could help you know what you are referring to when you say "nitrogen cycle", and it explains why plants taking nitrogen from the soil keeps nitrogen very much in the cycle.

Fallowing is just one of many agricultural practices that humans use to increase soil organic matter content.

Perhaps the best example would be the "plaggen sods" human farmers created in places such as conifer forests of Europe. Farmers often achieved a 500-1000% increase in topsoil organic matter content for their farms this way, but it took a lot of work. They transformed poor soils that could only support a conifer forest into rich agricultural soils with high organic matter content.

Even dairy farmers have practices to increase soil organic matter content. It doesn't always require a plow. It does require a decision to be made about priorities. Postpone short term profit to make a long term investment in the soil. But having a fallow year costs a farmer an entire year's crop yield. Many farmers are too close to the edge of bankruptcy to have the luxury of waiting a whole year before they can use the field again.

This was the inspiration for the give-methamphetamine-to-the-slave metaphor. If master's life is threatened unless he can get maximum labor from that slave in one day, he may feel he has no choice but to force his slave to consume methamphetamine. Bad for the long term health of the slave, but master has more immediate concerns to deal with.

Even regarding Zhang's paper (citing my research), how many rice farmers can afford to allow their paddies to go fallow for a year?

Back when people used to believe that government had some kind of role in these things, the larger society could support the farmer's choice to maintain the sustainable productivity of his soil by using more costly practices. They could offer a tax break or subsidy, knowing that it was in society's long term interest to ensure that our soils can continue to produce food for future generations.

Even so, a population of nine billion is really pushing it as far as sustainable productivity is concerned. It kind of forces us to go ahead and give the slave methamphetamine, even though we know it will shorten the slave's life.

I remember vividly a conversation I had with a slash-and-burn peasant farmer who was squatting on someone else's property with his little farm. He was terrified that I was there to enforce the law and he was in big trouble. I just wanted to see how he was doing it, to better understand my task as a Peace Corps volunteer in the forestry program. The farmer was practically in tears as he told me that he fully understands how deforestation is causing the rivers to dry up in the summer. He was aware that if he could afford to do it differently, he could farm in a manner that provokes less erosion and less loss of soil organic matter. But he was very poor and he had a family to feed. In the situation he found himself, he made the only choice that made sense to him. And he was terrified that he would go to jail and his family would starve.

If you plant a purple vetch, then plow it into the ground, the soil organic matter may stay constant (break even), but I don't see how it would increase. It may also loosen the organic matter that had been more clumped together, making it easier to absorb by the next crop, if there is one.

If trees are sucking up nitrogen, and those trees are living 100 years, aren't they tying up much of that nitrogen from flowing through the cycle for 100 years?

You are quite wrong because plants most certainly are able to gather N from the atmosphere, more with the help of lightning. You must have been off that day in shrinky class or perhaps you skipped botanical chemistry completely. My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

sealover wrote: I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

sealover wrote: The last big conference I gave a presentation at,

sealover wrote: Just to break even ...

sealover wrote:How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

Im a BM wrote:On the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, as you and Swan created six-feet-long posts of irrelevant discussion,

Im a BM wrote: you may have missed one of the new papers (actually related to the thread topic) that cited me this year.

Im a BM wrote: In the European Journal of Soil Science, the 2025 paper by Zhenglin Zhang, "Introduction of a fallow year to continuous rice systems enhances crop soil nitrogen uptake"

Im a BM wrote:The term "fallow" refers to an ancient practice of restoring soil organic matter content.

Im a BM wrote: INCREASING the soil's content of both organic carbon and bioavailable nitrogen.

You are quite wrong because plants most certainly are able to gather N from the atmosphere,

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tomato plants don't actually absorb nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil.

But peas do. Legumes sound like good example to answer my question, how is it even possible to plant a crop that will add nutrients to soil?

It would be nice if sealover would have used his soil science expertise to answer my question, is it possible for crops to add nutrients to soil?

Yes, legumes.

Those simple 2 words would have helped me. It only took me 1 question to chat GPT to get a good answer.

But I come here and get walls of spam, repetitious post scrambling, semantics about "organic matter," and a whole lot of condescending know it all attitude.

Maybe he did answer, if he did I missed it because it got buried.

"Walls of spam, repetitious post scrambling, semantics about 'organic matter', and a whole lot of condescending know it all attitude"

It would have taken only 1 question to chat GPT to learn what "organic matter" is. Then you might have a clue what "organic carbon" refers to.

It would only take 1 question to chat GPT for you to learn what "nutrients" are in soil.

It would only take 1 chat GPT inquiry for you to find out what the "nitrogen cycle" is, so you can avoid making absurd assertions about the potential danger of N2 loss or gain from the cycle.

You could check out Terry Chapin's very short news and review article in Nature, 1995, "New cog in the nitrogen cycle".

Are you aware that you filled up yards and yards of thread space (literally) just a day or so ago, that was way off topic for carbon sequestration?

Your inane discussions with Swan belong elsewhere.

Your soil science questions seem to require remedial education at a very fundamental level.

Do you realize that you're asking the guy who discovered the new cog in the nitrogen cycle to tolerate your trespasses, and spoon feed repetitious, remedial science education to you because your reading skills are so questionable. In order for you to be able to come back with spiteful comments.

Been saying here for three YEARS what "nutrients" are, what "organic matter" is, the carbon and nitrogen cycle, etc.

It is not my fault if you didn't read it or were unable to understand it.

You'll get more satisfaction asking chat GPT next time.

Your theory about the Earth's atmosphere being enclosed in a solid glass container is a unique one, I'll give you that.

Ask chat GPT about the glass ceiling hypothesis while you're at it.

Don't try to pretend that you have suddenly become genuinely interested in the topic of how to maximize carbon sequestration in terrestrial agroecosystems.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
I can't resist adding that climate change, in turn, enhances carbon losses from soil.

The last big conference I gave a presentation at, in 2008, included many posters and presentations about research int accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter due to higher average temperatures.

Just to break even now, agriculture must add more new organic matter to the soil than it used to, to keep up with the new regime of higher decomposition rates due to higher temperature. Otherwise there will be a net loss of soil organic matter, and a net emission of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

I am pretty interested in your soil discussions. So let's talk shit. LOL.

The research article in Nature indicates the significant carbon losses in soil have occurred in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think global temperature increases observed "climate change" is mostly observed increases in cold climates (high latitudes).

I think significant carbon loss from soil would be observed in cold climates warming up, but maybe not as much relative loss in warm climates remaining at relatively steady temperatures.

As permafrost melts, I think that would allow for more root growth of trees.

And as trees grow more, they must be consuming more carbon and nitrogen from the soil.

Tree growth would not be a risk of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but would add O2, and take CO2.

Do you think tree growth would have a negative effect on atmospheric N2, as well?

I don't think agriculture can ever possibly add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. If all the agriculture in a field dies, all its produce rotted, and the seeds eventually died too, that would be a break even from the perspective of the soil. But there would always be some weeds and grasses that spring up, and live for a few months before giving their produce back to the earth. Faster decomposition of organic matter in soil should encourage faster root growth.

I'm pretty that tree growth has never had a "negative effect on atmospheric N2" in any ecosystem. The only ways I know of that trees can directly impact atmospheric N2 is by feeding a symbiotic bacteria to take it out of the air and turn it into fertilizer. Such as an acacia tree. There is so much N2 in the atmosphere that the impact of nitrogen-fixing trees is about one drop in a full bucket. On the other hand, tannin-rich trees can prevent N2 from being regenerated for the atmosphere by denitrifying bacteria. Otherwise, the bacteria would be transforming (fertilizer) nitrate nitrogen into N2 for the atmosphere. Again, it amounts to about one drop in the full bucket of N2 in the atmosphere.

You are correct that "as permafrost melts, it would allow for more root growth of trees". The taiga is encroaching into the former tundra at its northern boundary.

Taiga (boreal forest) trees cannot grow at all where there is permafrost. The taiga-tundra boundary is where the permafrost heathland ends and the tundra forest begins. So, now we have taiga trees putting roots into the newly-thawed permafrost at the southern boundary of the tundra.

How does this shift impact carbon dioxide emissions? It increases carbon dioxide emitted from the soil through aerobic respiration by orders of magnitude!

That place where trees can finally put roots down into thawed permafrost is where the MOST carbon dioxide (and methane) are being emitted to the atmosphere.

Yes, taiga trees sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide and transform it into organic carbon, some of which they put directly into the soil. But that quantity is quite small compared to how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from the soil they now grow on. The enormous reservoir of frozen organic carbon is now thawed, drained, and available for decomposition by aerobic microorganisms.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the newly-thawed soil under the new taiga forest FAR exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide that those trees can possibly sequester from the atmosphere.

Yes, agriculture CAN add more organic matter to the soil than it takes. Usually, it does the opposite. Most of the hectares being farmed are managed in a manner that brings about net loss of soil organic matter, worsening over time. Cropland CAN be a major "sink" to sequester CO2, but usually it behaves as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Humans discovered farming practices thousands of years ago that bring about net increase of soil organic matter over time. But they are minimally profitable in the current economy. It pays to abuse and overfertilize the soil, at least in the short term. You can get a lot more work out of a slave in one day if you provide him with methamphetamine. But continuing to do so comes at the cost of shortening the slave's life. Maybe you don't plan to live that long yourself anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe your own life is in danger if you don't get as much work out of that slave TODAY as possible. Maybe you should rethink it.

Indeed melting permafrost generating CO2 is a significant risk for adding weight to the atmosphere. There's no denying it.

Wouldn't trees consuming nitrogen from soil be taking nitrogen out of the cycle?

I don't see how any farming practice can bring about a net increase in soil organic matter. Can you elaborate? There can be a net increase in a local region, if organic matter is taken from outside that local region and deposited there, is still my thinking. Maybe creative crop rotation can help minimize losses?

On the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration..." thread, as you and Swan created six-feet-long posts of irrelevant discussion, you may have missed one of the new papers (actually related to the thread topic) that cited me this year.

In the European Journal of Soil Science, the 2025 paper by Zhenglin Zhang, "Introduction of a fallow year to continuous rice systems enhances crop soil nitrogen uptake"

The term "fallow" refers to an ancient practice of restoring soil organic matter content. In this new paper's case, it was in rice paddies. Where I live, one of the more common fallow practices is to plant purple vetch, a nitrogen-fixing shrub. Rather than harvest it, they just plow it into the soil, adding both organic carbon and "fixed" atmospheric nitrogen to the soil. INCREASING the soil's content of both organic carbon and bioavailable nitrogen.

As far as trees "taking nitrogen out of the cycle" by consuming it from the soil, I have no idea what the question means. Nitrogen is still in the cycle, regardless of which specific chemical form it is in, unless it actually leaves the system somehow. If nitrogen goes from the soil into the tree, it is still very much in the system and part of the "nitrogen cycle".

Hey, check out the 1995 paper in Nature by Terry Chapin - "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". It includes an excellent visual aide diagram of the nitrogen cycle, including the "new cog" I am credited with discovering. It could help you know what you are referring to when you say "nitrogen cycle", and it explains why plants taking nitrogen from the soil keeps nitrogen very much in the cycle.

Fallowing is just one of many agricultural practices that humans use to increase soil organic matter content.

Perhaps the best example would be the "plaggen sods" human farmers created in places such as conifer forests of Europe. Farmers often achieved a 500-1000% increase in topsoil organic matter content for their farms this way, but it took a lot of work. They transformed poor soils that could only support a conifer forest into rich agricultural soils with high organic matter content.

Even dairy farmers have practices to increase soil organic matter content. It doesn't always require a plow. It does require a decision to be made about priorities. Postpone short term profit to make a long term investment in the soil. But having a fallow year costs a farmer an entire year's crop yield. Many farmers are too close to the edge of bankruptcy to have the luxury of waiting a whole year before they can use the field again.

This was the inspiration for the give-methamphetamine-to-the-slave metaphor. If master's life is threatened unless he can get maximum labor from that slave in one day, he may feel he has no choice but to force his slave to consume methamphetamine. Bad for the long term health of the slave, but master has more immediate concerns to deal with.

Even regarding Zhang's paper (citing my research), how many rice farmers can afford to allow their paddies to go fallow for a year?

Back when people used to believe that government had some kind of role in these things, the larger society could support the farmer's choice to maintain the sustainable productivity of his soil by using more costly practices. They could offer a tax break or subsidy, knowing that it was in society's long term interest to ensure that our soils can continue to produce food for future generations.

Even so, a population of nine billion is really pushing it as far as sustainable productivity is concerned. It kind of forces us to go ahead and give the slave methamphetamine, even though we know it will shorten the slave's life.

I remember vividly a conversation I had with a slash-and-burn peasant farmer who was squatting on someone else's property with his little farm. He was terrified that I was there to enforce the law and he was in big trouble. I just wanted to see how he was doing it, to better understand my task as a Peace Corps volunteer in the forestry program. The farmer was practically in tears as he told me that he fully understands how deforestation is causing the rivers to dry up in the summer. He was aware that if he could afford to do it differently, he could farm in a manner that provokes less erosion and less loss of soil organic matter. But he was very poor and he had a family to feed. In the situation he found himself, he made the only choice that made sense to him. And he was terrified that he would go to jail and his family would starve.

If you plant a purple vetch, then plow it into the ground, the soil organic matter may stay constant (break even), but I don't see how it would increase. It may also loosen the organic matter that had been more clumped together, making it easier to absorb by the next crop, if there is one.

If trees are sucking up nitrogen, and those trees are living 100 years, aren't they tying up much of that nitrogen from flowing through the cycle for 100 years?

You are quite wrong because plants most certainly are able to gather N from the atmosphere, more with the help of lightning. You must have been off that day in shrinky class or perhaps you skipped botanical chemistry completely. My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

There was a brief mention of the purple vetch being a nitrogen fixing shrub.

But not all plants can absorb nitrogen as legumes can.

And even legumes don't absorb the nitrogen, but the bacteria infecting them do.

"Legumes absorb nitrogen from the air through a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, primarily Rhizobium species, which live in root nodules of the plant.

Rhizobium bacteria in the soil detect chemical signals (flavonoids) from legume roots.

In response, the bacteria produce nod factors that cause root hairs to curl and form an entry point.

The bacteria enter the root and trigger the formation of nodules—specialized structures where they live inside plant cells.

Inside the nodules, the bacteria convert atmospheric nitrogen gas (N₂) into ammonia (NH₃) using the enzyme nitrogenase.

This is a high-energy process and only works in low-oxygen conditions (nodules have leghemoglobin to regulate oxygen).

Ammonia Use by the Plant:

The ammonia is quickly assimilated by the plant into amino acids and other nitrogen-containing compounds.

In return, the plant provides carbohydrates and shelter to the bacteria."

I tend to learn as I go, and I thought I might pick up some interesting points from this post. I did not automatically build the above flow chart in mind as soon as I scanned the phrase, "Nitrogen Fixing."

But how about the 30 year old bonsai trees in my front yard? Do you think they are tying up a lot of nitrogen from the soil-atomoshphere cycle?

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

Swan wrote:

Purple vetch is not ALL PLANTS. You were wrong you government fart, now own up to your mistake or stay useless and in denial

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Purple vetch is not ALL PLANTS. You were wrong you government fart, now own up to your mistake or stay useless and in denial

I did. You may want to throw some purple vetch into the rotation of your garden which has no nitrogen fixers.

Swan wrote:
I dig a hole with a post hole digger then fill it with the seedling and a custom mix of composted cow manure, worm castings, peat moss, a specialty tomato fertilizer and extra bone meal. That said a mature tomato plant will grow 6 inches overnight during a humid thunderstorm because of the added Nitrogen fixed through the lightning. Everyone agrees but you, because the only tomato you get to eat is from Chef Boyardee

Im a BM wrote:
Your theory about the Earth's atmosphere being enclosed in a solid glass container is a unique one, I'll give you that.

Swan wrote:
Plants most certainly are able to gather N from the atmosphere, more with the help of lightning.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.

When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.

LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.

When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.

LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know