Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems
| 30-06-2024 18:06 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
New paper about climate change and changing range of plant species This was published May 14, 2024. It cites the author of this thread. Allstad G. Hedemann. 2024. Growth responses of seedlings along encroachment gradients of the allelopathic plant Empetrum nigrum. The "encroachment" is the colonization of new territory by a species that previously could not grow at such high altitude or latitude. Empetrum nigrum is an evergreen shrub that is doing both - "encroaching" into both higher latitude and higher altitude in recent decades. Adapted to circumpolar and alpine habitats, this shrub is now able to establish where it is "invasive" to the plant communities already there. Similar to the way boreal forest now "encroaches" into tundra. Allstad Hedemann cites my published research because one impact of the "encroachment" of the Empetrum nigrum shrub is to alter nitrogen cycling dynamics through the impact of secondary metabolites (polyphenols) making nitrogen less available to the plant community being invaded. The "encroachment gradient" referred in the title is how the researcher was able to make meaningful comparisons. At one end of the gradient would be a study site with minimal, initial colonization by the new shrub in town. At the other end, a study site that is heavily colonized by the encroaching shrub. Multiple intermediate points of varying degree of colonization make a good gradient to study. The impact of the new shrub on availability of soil nitrogen to native plants could be measured all along the gradient. This is considered to be "allelopathy", where one plant adds a chemical to the system that makes another plant less able to compete. Most such chemical warfare among plants is a direct toxic effect to another's roots or to another's symbiotic microbial fungi or bacteria partners. In this case, the shrub is using food as a weapon. Denying the competing vegetation access to the soil nitrogen they need to survive. But for purposes of climate change discussion, this is more clear evidence that it has gotten warmer in recent decades. You don't even need a thermometer to prove it. Just look at the geographic distribution of plant communities. And the ability of a species such as this evergreen shrub to now move into new places where tree huggers are freaking out over loss of biodiversity to invasive species. Top of this page, 2 posts down is a description of thread topic, with extensive reference to tannins, as per this new paper This new book was published a few months ago. It cites my polyphenol (a.k.a. tannin) investigations. Nazima Rasool and Zafar Reshi. 2024. Plant Phenolics: Role in Biotic Stress Alleviation and Plant Microbe Interactions. pages 95-119. IN Rafiq Lone et al, eds. Plant Phenolics in Biotic Stress Management. Springer, Singapore. As has been emphasized in this thread, plant phenolics, most notably plant polyphenols or tannins, influence carbon and nitrogen cycling in major ways. This book chapter reviews the role of many plant phenolics, not just tannins, in plant microbe interactions. It touches upon symbioses between host plants and mycorrhizal fungi, although they still stick to the old school approach of seeing the primary adaptive value of phenolics as "defenses". This paper was published April 10, 2024 B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932. This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research. It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley. At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective. Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense. At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling. Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil. It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper. Most relevant posts are compiled beginning 2/3 down page 22. |
| 30-06-2024 20:47 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote: "Alligators are amphibians" is one of the most hilarious. Carbon atoms can be in more than one oxidation state. The term "inorganic" is usually interchangeable with "mineral". For example, "mineral" nitrogen includes ammonium and nitrate. "Organic" nitrogen is nitrogen in compounds with reduced forms of carbon. Protein and amino acids are compounds of organic nitrogen. Urea is also "mineral" nitrogen, although it is a compound containing carbon. The one carbon atom in urea is double bonded to oxygen in a carbonyl group, and is partially oxidized. Inorganic carbon is fully oxidized, such as carbon dioxide. However, PARTIALLY oxidized carbon is generally considered "inorganic" as well - carbon monoxide, carbides, etc, although energy can still be released upon their complete oxidation. carbon MONOXIDE plus oxygen makes carbon DIOXIDE plus ENERGY. When organic carbon such as fossil fuel is OXIDIZED, energy is released as it becomes INORGANIC carbon. CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O + ENERGY methane + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water + energy Transformation of organic carbon into inorganic carbon (i.e. oxidation) is EXOTHERMIC. Whether it is combustion or respiration using oxygen, or microbial reduction of sulfate, nitrate, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), etc. Transformation of INORGANIC carbon (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, or carbonate) to organic carbon is ENDOTHERMIC. It requires energy from another source be added. Photosynthesis captures light energy to drive the endothermic reaction. Methanogenesis is a microbial process in which hydrogen gas is combined with carbon dioxide to make methane and water, releasing some energy 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + energy Some of the very first bacteria to evolve on Earth did (and still do) this. Four molecules of hydrogen gas get oxidized as one molecule of inorganic carbon gets reduced to methane. More energy is released from burning four molecules of hydrogen than one molecule of methane. Reduced hydrogen atoms lost chemical energy getting oxidized, and inorganic carbon gained chemical energy getting reduced to organic carbon. Similarly, the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis uses oxidation of hydrogen as the energy source to for the endothermic chemical reduction of carbon. But rather than using fully oxidized carbon (carbon dioxide), the FT synthesis begins with partially oxidized carbon (carbon monoxide), CO. The product is fully REDUCED (organic) carbon. (2n + 1) H2 + (n) CO = CnH(2n + 2) + (n) H2O 3 H2 + CO = CH4 + H2O (methane) or 5 H2 + 2 CO = C2H6 + 2 H2O (ethane) or 7 H2 + 3 CO = C3H8 + 3 H2O (propane) There is NO REASON TO BELIEVE that miles beneath the Earth's surface, pure hydrogen gas is coming into contact with pure carbon monoxide, with the kind of catalysts present that are required for the FT synthesis. There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that fossil fuel (petroleum, coal, natural gas) formed from dead organisms. It is not surprising that after more than two years of simply repeating that "there is no such thing as organic carbon", the scientifically illiterate troll NEVER FIGURED OUT that this is a real term very commonly used by real scientists. And after more than two years of meaningless rebuttals regarding alkalinity, the scientifically illiterate troll FINALLY offered a UNIT. "ppm" or "ppm bicarbonate" or "ppm carbonate" were what were supposedly used by scientists as units to report alkalinity. "Only a scientifically illiterate moron would say..." such a stupid thing. For the STUPIDITY award, "there is no such thing as fossil fuel" is the winner. Someone so thoroughly unteachable is not worthy of response. Especially a disgusting troll who calls everyone ELSE a "moron". |
| 01-07-2024 02:35 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14886) |
sealover wrote: Carbon atoms can be in more than one oxidation state. ... but they are the same carbon atoms, and there is no such state as either "organic" or "inorganic." Can we get you to acknowledge this? It would be a very honest thing for you to do. sealover wrote: The term "inorganic" is usually interchangeable with "mineral". Why did you not state up front that you use the word "inorganic" to mean "mineral"? It's all you had to do. sealover wrote: For example, "mineral" nitrogen includes ammonium and nitrate. This doesn't make any sense. There is no mineral nitrogen. There are mineral chemical formulae that contain nitrogen (e.g. nitrates) but no nitrogen contains any minerals, just as there are no carbon atoms that are either organic or inorganic. sealover wrote: "Organic" nitrogen is nitrogen in compounds with reduced forms of carbon. The problem I have with your terminology is that it totally confuses the dependency, and reverses cause and effect. Nitrogen doesn't change depending on what contains it, neither does carbon. Whenever I see someone doing what you are doing, i.e. confusing cause with effect, I prepare myself for imminent physics violations that defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the cause->effect dependency. For example, I bet you would have no problem asserting that the atmospheric CO2's prevention of the escape of earth's thermal radiation into space causes an increase in earth's average global temperature. Am I right? sealover wrote: Protein and amino acids are compounds of organic nitrogen. At the same time, you acknowledge that "organic" nitrogen atoms are identical to "inorganic" nitrogen atoms, which are identical to all other nitrogen atoms, yes? sealover wrote: Urea is also "mineral" nitrogen, although it is a compound containing carbon. Even though the nitrogen atoms in urea are identical to all other nitrogen atoms, yes? sealover wrote: The one carbon atom in urea is double bonded to oxygen in a carbonyl group, and is partially oxidized. Even if the Chernobyl group has a meltdown, every single carbon atom is identical to every other. sealover wrote: Inorganic carbon is fully oxidized, such as carbon dioxide. Would you have heartburn if people were to refer to CO2 as being fully carbonized oxygen? sealover wrote: There is EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE that all the elements required to effect the Fischer-Tropsh process exist in the earth's crust near the mantle, to include the high temperatures and pressures, and the metal catalysts. sealover wrote: There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that fossil fuel (petroleum, coal, natural gas) formed from dead organisms. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says it's not possible. This is why you can't point to any formerly living thing that somehow rotted/decayed into a potent fuel. sealover wrote: It is not surprising that after more than two years of simply repeating that "there is no such thing as organic carbon", the scientifically illiterate troll NEVER FIGURED OUT that this is a real term very commonly used by real scientists. It is not surprising that after more than two years of simply repeating the terms "organic carbon" and "inorganic carbon", the scientifically illiterate troll NEVER FIGURED OUT that there aren't any differences between any element's atoms. sealover wrote: And after more than two years of meaningless rebuttals regarding alkalinity, the scientifically illiterate troll FINALLY offered a UNIT. And after more than two years of happily using "ppm", the TROLL suddenly developed an allergic reaction to the UNIT and began blaming everyone else but himself for never having mentioned his preferences previously." sealover wrote: For the STUPIDITY award, "there is no such thing as fossil fuel" is the winner. Except that there is no such thing as any fuel for fossils, or any fossils burned as fuel. After more than two years of insisting that fossils are sold and used commercially as fuel, the TROLL still hasn't produced a single example. sealover wrote: Someone so thoroughly unteachable is not worthy of response. ... but I'll respond to you anyway. sealover wrote: Especially a disgusting troll who calls everyone ELSE a "moron". In contrast, I don't call everyone a "moron." I only refer to morons as "moron." |
| 01-07-2024 18:36 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
New paper about climate change and changing range of plant species This was published May 14, 2024. It cites the author of this thread. Allstad G. Hedemann. 2024. Growth responses of seedlings along encroachment gradients of the allelopathic plant Empetrum nigrum. The "encroachment" is the colonization of new territory by a species that previously could not grow at such high altitude or latitude. Empetrum nigrum is an evergreen shrub that is doing both - "encroaching" into both higher latitude and higher altitude in recent decades. Adapted to circumpolar and alpine habitats, this shrub is now able to establish where it is "invasive" to the plant communities already there. Similar to the way boreal forest now "encroaches" into tundra. Allstad Hedemann cites my published research because one impact of the "encroachment" of the Empetrum nigrum shrub is to alter nitrogen cycling dynamics through the impact of secondary metabolites (polyphenols) making nitrogen less available to the plant community being invaded. The "encroachment gradient" referred in the title is how the researcher was able to make meaningful comparisons. At one end of the gradient would be a study site with minimal, initial colonization by the new shrub in town. At the other end, a study site that is heavily colonized by the encroaching shrub. Multiple intermediate points of varying degree of colonization make a good gradient to study. The impact of the new shrub on availability of soil nitrogen to native plants could be measured all along the gradient. This is considered to be "allelopathy", where one plant adds a chemical to the system that makes another plant less able to compete. Most such chemical warfare among plants is a direct toxic effect to another's roots or to another's symbiotic microbial fungi or bacteria partners. In this case, the shrub is using food as a weapon. Denying the competing vegetation access to the soil nitrogen they need to survive. But for purposes of climate change discussion, this is more clear evidence that it has gotten warmer in recent decades. You don't even need a thermometer to prove it. Just look at the geographic distribution of plant communities. And the ability of a species such as this evergreen shrub to now move into new places where tree huggers are freaking out over loss of biodiversity to invasive species. Top of this page, 2 posts down is a description of thread topic, with extensive reference to tannins, as per this new paper This new book was published a few months ago. It cites my polyphenol (a.k.a. tannin) investigations. Nazima Rasool and Zafar Reshi. 2024. Plant Phenolics: Role in Biotic Stress Alleviation and Plant Microbe Interactions. pages 95-119. IN Rafiq Lone et al, eds. Plant Phenolics in Biotic Stress Management. Springer, Singapore. As has been emphasized in this thread, plant phenolics, most notably plant polyphenols or tannins, influence carbon and nitrogen cycling in major ways. This book chapter reviews the role of many plant phenolics, not just tannins, in plant microbe interactions. It touches upon symbioses between host plants and mycorrhizal fungi, although they still stick to the old school approach of seeing the primary adaptive value of phenolics as "defenses". This paper was published April 10, 2024 B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932. This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research. It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley. At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective. Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense. At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling. Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil. It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper. Relevant posts of thread are compiled beginning 2/3 down page 22. |
| 01-07-2024 23:01 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886) |
sealover wrote: New paper about climate change and changing range of plant species Is this paper based on mistaking "climate" for "environment"? Does it also confuse "climate" for "weather"? |
| 14-07-2024 18:45 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
CORRECTION: "Carbolic" acid WAS still the term Parrot Boy used two years ago to mistakenly refer to carbonic acid. I was incorrect to say that Into the Night had already stopped calling carbonic acid by the wrong name before I got here two years ago. In about the middle of his post below (April 10, 2022), he repeats the same language about how carbon dioxide forms "carbolic" acid in water. That is the same language used many times in the years before, including the October 29, 2021 "Into the Night's comments" associated with the IBdaMann "Ocean Acidification Debunked" mini manifesto. CORRECTION: I DID point out the error at the time. see: "Biogeosocialists" thread Into the Night wrote:GretaGroupie wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 15-07-2024 01:57 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886) |
Im a BM wrote: In about the middle of his post below (April 10, 2022), he repeats the same language about how carbon dioxide forms "carbolic" acid in water. So, do the courteous thing and point out that he must have meant "carbonic acid" in that particular case. He might very well have been thinking carbonic acid and simply wrote "carbolic acid." Into the Night knows the difference between the two, but that doesn't mean he will never make a typo or write the wrong word. Just point it out right then, at the moment, and give him an opportunity to either thank you and make the correction, or to explain why he believes he's using the correct term. Im a BM wrote:CORRECTION: I DID point out the error at the time. You didn't point out the error so much as you indicated that you thought they were the same thing. Go back and re-read your comment; it is the same comment that would be made by someone who thinks the two different terms are the same term. This kind of confusion can be eliminated by simply pointing out what you believe is an error, by explaining why you think it is an error, and by defining your terms. Im a BM wrote: see: "Biogeosocialists" thread I reviewed it again and carbonic acid isn't even a principal topic in the thread. |
| RE: failure to define any terms10-09-2024 07:17 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
Within days of my first post, Into the Night responds with this. I should have called out the bullshit more assertively. It isn't just that Into the Night FAILS TO DEFINE ANY OF HIS TERMS... Into the Night is REDEFINING common terms to have an entirely new meaning. The term "carbohydrate" is redefined to cover multiple classes of non-carbohydrate (i.e. non saccharide) organic compounds. EVERTHING IN THE ENTIRE PLANT IS DEFINED AS CARBOHYDRATE, unless it happens to be protein. It bothered me that he insisted that "lignin is a carbohydrate". I have published lignin research in chemistry journals, and I know with certainty that it doesn't qualify as a "carbohydrate" under any legitimate definition. And what about vegetable oil? It is part of the "entire plant" and it is not protein. Even HYDROCARBONS are obliged to be "carbohydrates" under Into the Night's radical new redefinition. And this was two and a half years ago. He STILL hasn't got a clue what lignin is or what a carbohydrate is. Eff the idiot. He has nothing of value to contribute to any science discussion. Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote:Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 12-09-2024 02:14 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
A FEW DEFINITIONS Carbon sequestration = removal of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere by some means. I suppose they could have called it "carbon dioxide sequestration" when they coined the term, but it saves us all time now to have it shortened. Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. Organic (acid, nitrogen, alkalinity, matter..) as a scientific term, the prefix "organic" means it contains or is attached to organic carbon atoms. Organic nitrogen is a nitrogen atom attached to a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state. Amino acids contain organic nitrogen. The nitrogen in ammonia (NH3) is INORGANIC nitrogen, as it is NOT attached to organic carbon. The nitrogen in urea, CO(NH2)2, is attached to a carbon atom, but urea does NOT contain organic nitrogen. The carbon atom in urea is in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state, and it is INORGANIC carbon. Inorganic carbon = carbon in chemically oxidized form I suppose they might have been more specific when they coined the term, because there is a distinction between organic carbon ATOMS and organic carbon COMPOUNDS. An organic carbon ATOM is in a chemically reduced oxidation state. And organic carbon COMPOUND does not have an oxidation state that is in either reduced or oxidized form. There are only FOUR compounds of INORGANIC CARBON that matter for this thread. They are carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Other inorganic carbon compounds DO exist, such as urea and carbon monoxide. They are sort of "borderline", with carbon only partially oxidized. Inorganic carbon compounds (CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, etc.) contains atoms of carbon in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state. There is a VERY important difference between a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state versus a carbon atom in oxidized oxidation state. ENERGY. Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon. Energy is consumed when inorganic carbon is reduced to organic carbon. Combustion releases energy as organic carbon gets oxidized. Photosynthesis consumes energy (solar) as inorganic carbon gets reduced. There are THOUSANDS of compounds of ORGANIC CARBON. Tens of thousands, in fact, of unique chemical compounds, all containing organic carbon. Every chemical compound containing organic carbon is called "organic". In organic chemistry, these can all be designated as "R" R-OH, for example, is an organic carbon compound with a hydroxyl (-OH) group attached. There are at least a thousand distinct compounds that can all be properly designated as R-OH. In this case, if R is -CH3, R-OH is methyl alcohol, or methanol. If R is -CH2CH3. R-OH is ethyl alcohol, or ethanol. For purposes of this thread, we'll take the alcohols a little farther. If R is just a single unattached benzene ring, then R-OH is PHENOL or benzenol. If R is more than one benzene ring, or even just one benzene ring with anything attached to it other than a single hydroxyl group, R-OH is a phenol, but it is not phenol. There is only one specific chemical compound with the unique name "phenol", which is C6H5OH, also known as benzenol, carboxylic acid, and phenolic acid. There are thousands of different chemical compounds that are all classified as phenols, but only ONE of them is NAMED phenol. Distinct classes of organic carbon compounds can be identified by what group is attached to the R involved. R-COOH, for example. Organic carbon compounds with a carboxylic group. These are all carboxylic acids. Organic acids. One of the two kinds of organic acids. If R is -CH2CH3, then R-COOH is acetic acid. For purposes of this thread, the organic compounds of greatest interest are... POLYPHENOL CARBOXYLIC ACIDS, also known as polyphenols or tannins. Polyphenol carboxylic acids contain multiple benzene rings. Those benzene rings have carboxylic (-COOH) and hydroxyl (-OH) groups attached. Up to three different hydroxyl groups might be attached to a single benzene ring, and a carboxylic group is often attached to the same benzene ring as hydroxyl groups. The configuration of carboxylic and hydroxyl groups in the polyphenol structure give it many special properties. If two hydroxyl groups on the same benzene ring are in adjacent "ortho" position, this enables the polyphenol to act as a complexing ligand, binding to proteins, metals, carbohydrates, etc. If the polyphenol benzene rings have one hydroxyl group and one carboxylic group in adjacent "ortho" position, this provides even stronger complexing ligand power than the ortho di-hydroxy groups. Much more metal chelating power. So, polyphenols are phenol carboxylic acids that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites to form strong complexes with proteins, metals, and more. And don't let the bully intimidate you when he yells "there is no such thing as organic carbon" ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling. The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter. Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form. Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses. Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter. We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen. |
| 12-09-2024 07:33 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
A FEW DEFINITIONS Carbon sequestration = removal of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere by some means. I suppose they could have called it "carbon dioxide sequestration" when they coined the term, but it saves us all time now to have it shortened. Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. Organic (acid, nitrogen, alkalinity, matter..) as a scientific term, the prefix "organic" means it contains or is attached to organic carbon atoms. Organic nitrogen is a nitrogen atom attached to a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state. Amino acids contain organic nitrogen. The nitrogen in ammonia (NH3) is INORGANIC nitrogen, as it is NOT attached to organic carbon. The nitrogen in nitrate(NO3-) is INORGANIC nitrogen - No organic C attached The nitrogen in urea, CO(NH2)2, is attached to a carbon atom. But urea does NOT contain organic nitrogen. The carbon atom in urea is in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state, and it is INORGANIC carbon. Therefore, urea nitrogen is INORGANIC nitrogen. Inorganic carbon = carbon atom in chemically oxidized oxidation state. Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. I suppose they might have been more specific when they coined the term, because there is a distinction between organic carbon ATOMS and organic carbon COMPOUNDS. An organic carbon ATOM is in a chemically reduced oxidation state. And organic carbon COMPOUND does not have an oxidation state that is in either reduced or oxidized form. There are only FOUR compounds of INORGANIC CARBON that matter for this thread. They are carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Other inorganic carbon compounds DO exist, such as urea and carbon monoxide. They are sort of "borderline", with carbon only partially oxidized. Inorganic carbon compounds (CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, etc.) contains atoms of carbon in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state. There is a VERY important difference between a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state versus a carbon atom in oxidized oxidation state. ENERGY. Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon. Energy is consumed when inorganic carbon is reduced to organic carbon. Combustion releases energy as organic carbon gets oxidized. Photosynthesis consumes energy (solar) as inorganic carbon gets reduced. There are THOUSANDS of compounds of ORGANIC CARBON. Tens of thousands, in fact, of unique chemical compounds, all containing organic carbon. Every chemical compound containing organic carbon is called "organic". In organic chemistry, these can all be designated as "R" R-OH, for example, is an organic carbon compound with a hydroxyl (-OH) group attached. There are at least a thousand distinct compounds that can all be properly designated as R-OH. In this case, if R is -CH3, R-OH is methyl alcohol, or methanol. If R is -CH2CH3. R-OH is ethyl alcohol, or ethanol. For purposes of this thread, we'll take the alcohols a little farther. If R is just a single unattached benzene ring, then R-OH is PHENOL or benzenol. If R is more than one benzene ring, or even just one benzene ring with anything attached to it other than a single hydroxyl group, R-OH is a phenol, but it is not phenol. There is only one specific chemical compound with the unique name "phenol", which is C6H5OH, also known as benzenol, carboxylic acid, and phenolic acid. ================================== * edit and correction inserted C6H5OH is NOT carboxylic acid. C6H5OH is CARBOLIC acid, one of the R-OH's R-COOH is carboxylic acid. My habit when I go back and see a mistake in something I posted, is to correct the error and acknowledge the mistake. If someone else had pointed it out to me first, I would not have denied the mistake. I would have openly acknowledged it in a humble enough manner. If someone asked me to explain what the apparent mistake might have been intended to mean, I would certainly try to be intellectually honest about what I thought I was communicating at the time. I would not revise the story to claim it was actually quite correct, when viewed through a convoluted obfuscation. If someone wanted me to offer an explanation for why I may have called it carboxylic acid at one time and carbolic acid at another time, I would DENY that one of my claims was clearly WRONG. I would not EVADE THE QUESTION with a non answer such as "RQAA". But, that's just me. ==================================== There are thousands of different chemical compounds that are all classified as phenols, but only ONE of them is NAMED phenol. Distinct classes of organic carbon compounds can be identified by what group is attached to the R involved. R-COOH, for example. Organic carbon compounds with a carboxylic group. These are all carboxylic acids. Organic acids. One of the two kinds of organic acids. If R is -CH2CH3, then R-COOH is acetic acid. For purposes of this thread, the organic compounds of greatest interest are... POLYPHENOL CARBOXYLIC ACIDS, also known as polyphenols or tannins. Polyphenol carboxylic acids contain multiple benzene rings. Those benzene rings have carboxylic (-COOH) and hydroxyl (-OH) groups attached. Up to three different hydroxyl groups might be attached to a single benzene ring, and a carboxylic group is often attached to the same benzene ring as hydroxyl groups. The configuration of carboxylic and hydroxyl groups in the polyphenol structure give it many special properties. If two hydroxyl groups on the same benzene ring are in adjacent "ortho" position, this enables the polyphenol to act as a complexing ligand, binding to proteins, metals, carbohydrates, etc. If the polyphenol benzene rings have one hydroxyl group and one carboxylic group in adjacent "ortho" position, this provides even stronger complexing ligand power than the ortho di-hydroxy groups. Much more metal chelating power. So, polyphenols are phenol carboxylic acids that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites to form strong complexes with proteins, metals, and more. And don't let the bully intimidate you when he yells "there is no such thing as organic carbon" ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling. The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter. Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form. Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses. Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter. We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.[/quote] |
| 13-09-2024 02:04 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(22643) |
Im a BM wrote: DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE! Im a BM wrote: Stop making shit up. Im a BM wrote: Lignin is a carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: Lignin isn't a research or a study. Im a BM wrote: Chemistry is not a journal, magazine, book, website, Google, government agency, degree, title, government agency, college, or university. Im a BM wrote: Lignin is a carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: What about it? Im a BM wrote: Stop making shit up. A hydrocarbon is not a carbohydrate. Im a BM wrote: DON'T BLAME ME FOR YOUR PROBLEM! Im a BM wrote: You are not discussing science. You deny science. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-09-2024 02:15 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
sealover wrote: Why would you want to? Carbon dioxide is absolutely essential for life on Earth. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic or has an 'oxidized form'. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. Carbon is not oxidized. sealover wrote: Carbon is not a compound. Carbon is not oxygen. sealover wrote: Carbon has no oxidation state. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is no reducible. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not photosynthesis. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: The spam is YOURS. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-09-2024 02:25 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
sealover wrote: Blatant lie. sealover wrote: Asking the same question over and over is a fallacy. It is mindless. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic. 'Humic' is not an acid. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry' in science. sealover wrote: Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Why do you hate carbon dioxide? sealover wrote: Carbon is not nitrogen or oxygen. sealover wrote: Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: Nitrogen isn't soil Carbon is not carbon dioxide. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-09-2024 02:44 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886) |
sealover wrote: A FEW DEFINITIONS I appreciate the gesture. Thank you. sealover wrote: Carbon sequestration = removal of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere by some means. What is the opposite effect? , i.e. when sea water evaporates and releases CO2 back into the atmosphere, that is "carbon what"? ... carbon reintegration? sealover wrote: I suppose they could have called it "carbon dioxide sequestration" when they coined the term, but it saves us all time now to have it shortened. Let's agree to call it CO2 sequestration. This way we won't be tempted to include soot settling to the ground. sealover wrote: Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. Only molecules, not atoms, can be in a chemically reduced state. sealover wrote: Organic (acid, nitrogen, alkalinity, matter..) as a scientific term, the prefix "organic" means it contains or is attached to organic carbon atoms. You have to delete the second word "organic" to avoid a circular definition. The modifier "organic" simply means that it contains, or is attached to, carbon atoms. sealover wrote: Organic nitrogen is a nitrogen atom attached to a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state. It really can't be. Check your wording. It could be a nitrogen atom bonded to a carbon-based molecule that is in a reduced state. |
| 13-09-2024 04:17 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
One more definition: For simplicity, I did not go into detail about the oxidation state of carbon ATOMS, other than to say "oxidized" or "reduced" Carbon ATOMS have multiple potential oxidation states, ranging from FULLY oxidized (e.g. CO2), with oxidation number = +4, to FULLY reduced (e.g. CH4), with oxidation number = -4 Intermediate oxidation states include diamond (C), with oxidation number = 0 Carbon atoms with oxidation numbers 0, -1, -2, -3, and -4 are reduced. Carbon atoms with oxidation numbers +1, +2, +3, and +4 are oxidized, to one extent or another. Carbon COMPOUNDS can be calculated for a net oxidation number of all the atoms. That oxidation number is always zero, unless the compound has an ion charge. So, for simplicity, the oxidation state of a carbon atoms is not a binary, either/or, fully oxidized or fully reduced. Is is somewhere along a gradient of nine distinct oxidation states, each of which is oxidized or reduced to some extent. But it covers all bases for most discussion to just say the carbon atom is oxidized or reduced, without quantifying exactly HOW oxidized or reduced. ---------- A FEW DEFINITIONS Carbon sequestration = removal of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere by some means. I suppose they could have called it "carbon dioxide sequestration" when they coined the term, but it saves us all time now to have it shortened. Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. Organic (acid, nitrogen, alkalinity, matter..) as a scientific term, the prefix "organic" means it contains or is attached to organic carbon atoms. Organic nitrogen is a nitrogen atom attached to a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state. Amino acids contain organic nitrogen. The nitrogen in ammonia (NH3) is INORGANIC nitrogen, as it is NOT attached to organic carbon. The nitrogen in nitrate(NO3-) is INORGANIC nitrogen - No organic C attached The nitrogen in urea, CO(NH2)2, is attached to a carbon atom. But urea does NOT contain organic nitrogen. The carbon atom in urea is in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state, and it is INORGANIC carbon. Therefore, urea nitrogen is INORGANIC nitrogen. Inorganic carbon = carbon atom in chemically oxidized oxidation state. Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. I suppose they might have been more specific when they coined the term, because there is a distinction between organic carbon ATOMS and organic carbon COMPOUNDS. An organic carbon ATOM is in a chemically reduced oxidation state. And organic carbon COMPOUND does not have an oxidation state that is in either reduced or oxidized form. There are only FOUR compounds of INORGANIC CARBON that matter for this thread. They are carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Other inorganic carbon compounds DO exist, such as urea and carbon monoxide. They are sort of "borderline", with carbon only partially oxidized. Inorganic carbon compounds (CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, etc.) contains atoms of carbon in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state. There is a VERY important difference between a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state versus a carbon atom in oxidized oxidation state. ENERGY. Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon. Energy is consumed when inorganic carbon is reduced to organic carbon. Combustion releases energy as organic carbon gets oxidized. Photosynthesis consumes energy (solar) as inorganic carbon gets reduced. There are THOUSANDS of compounds of ORGANIC CARBON. Tens of thousands, in fact, of unique chemical compounds, all containing organic carbon. Every chemical compound containing organic carbon is called "organic". In organic chemistry, these can all be designated as "R" R-OH, for example, is an organic carbon compound with a hydroxyl (-OH) group attached. There are at least a thousand distinct compounds that can all be properly designated as R-OH. In this case, if R is -CH3, R-OH is methyl alcohol, or methanol. If R is -CH2CH3. R-OH is ethyl alcohol, or ethanol. For purposes of this thread, we'll take the alcohols a little farther. If R is just a single unattached benzene ring, then R-OH is PHENOL or benzenol. If R is more than one benzene ring, or even just one benzene ring with anything attached to it other than a single hydroxyl group, R-OH is a phenol, but it is not phenol. There is only one specific chemical compound with the unique name "phenol", which is C6H5OH, also known as benzenol, carboxylic acid, and phenolic acid. ================================== * edit and correction inserted C6H5OH is NOT carboxylic acid. C6H5OH is CARBOLIC acid, one of the R-OH's R-COOH is carboxylic acid. My habit when I go back and see a mistake in something I posted, is to correct the error and acknowledge the mistake. If someone else had pointed it out to me first, I would not have denied the mistake. I would have openly acknowledged it in a humble enough manner. If someone asked me to explain what the apparent mistake might have been intended to mean, I would certainly try to be intellectually honest about what I thought I was communicating at the time. I would not revise the story to claim it was actually quite correct, when viewed through a convoluted obfuscation. If someone wanted me to offer an explanation for why I may have called it carboxylic acid at one time and carbolic acid at another time, I would DENY that one of my claims was clearly WRONG. I would not EVADE THE QUESTION with a non answer such as "RQAA". But, that's just me. ==================================== There are thousands of different chemical compounds that are all classified as phenols, but only ONE of them is NAMED phenol. Distinct classes of organic carbon compounds can be identified by what group is attached to the R involved. R-COOH, for example. Organic carbon compounds with a carboxylic group. These are all carboxylic acids. Organic acids. One of the two kinds of organic acids. If R is -CH2CH3, then R-COOH is acetic acid. For purposes of this thread, the organic compounds of greatest interest are... POLYPHENOL CARBOXYLIC ACIDS, also known as polyphenols or tannins. Polyphenol carboxylic acids contain multiple benzene rings. Those benzene rings have carboxylic (-COOH) and hydroxyl (-OH) groups attached. Up to three different hydroxyl groups might be attached to a single benzene ring, and a carboxylic group is often attached to the same benzene ring as hydroxyl groups. The configuration of carboxylic and hydroxyl groups in the polyphenol structure give it many special properties. If two hydroxyl groups on the same benzene ring are in adjacent "ortho" position, this enables the polyphenol to act as a complexing ligand, binding to proteins, metals, carbohydrates, etc. If the polyphenol benzene rings have one hydroxyl group and one carboxylic group in adjacent "ortho" position, this provides even stronger complexing ligand power than the ortho di-hydroxy groups. Much more metal chelating power. So, polyphenols are phenol carboxylic acids that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites to form strong complexes with proteins, metals, and more. And don't let the bully intimidate you when he yells "there is no such thing as organic carbon" ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling. The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter. Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form. Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses. Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter. We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.[/quote][/quote] |
| 13-09-2024 04:33 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not reducible. Carbon is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not a compound. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not oxygen. It is not reducible. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not oxygen. It is not reducible. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-09-2024 08:57 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
"Let's agree to call it CO2 sequestration." - IBdaMann As opposed to calling it "carbon sequestration". No, let's not agree to change the term that everyone has been using. You are free to call it whatever you want. You are free to insist that your choice of words mean exactly what you intend them to mean. You are free to insist that you are the ONLY one who is using the scientifically correct term. But, let's not agree call it CO2 sequestration. I can't agree to that. It would be pretty ****ing arrogant of us to think we get to make up terms. I was never consulted when the term "fossil fuel" was coined. I might have thought of something better. But, ever since I was taught the term, I never failed to comprehend that it was not ambiguous in any way. It referred ONLY to petroleum, coal, and natural gas mined from underground. Not too hard to memorize the definition. If I started calling "fossil fuel" something else, how would anyone else know what I'm talking about? It's okay if you don't answer my question. Really, it's okay. I have not redefined ocean acidification, but I deliberately put the "acidification" in quotation marks. This helps to dissuade the ignorant, knee-jerk rebuttal that somehow it is all about acidic pH versus alkaline pH. For those who are willing to learn, it opens a chance to explain WHY I write it that way. Acidification isn't about where you are on the pH scale. It's about which direction you are going. Just as increasing basicity means increasing pH, increasing acidity means decreasing pH. The ocean has already been "acidified" from pH 8.3 to pH 8.2 To be clear, the quotation marks aren't needed. The ocean has already been acidified from pH 8.3 to pH 8.2 (edited to correct) At no point am I claiming to be correcting the term that everyone has already been using. At no point am I saying, "Let's agree to call it ocean 'acidification'" I don't expect anyone to adopt it for wider use. I just use it as a gimmick to first point out that nobody is saying the pH ever goes below 7. Then point out how small the pH shift has been, to show that if THAT were the issue of concern, it hardly seems to have caused much harm. And THEN explain that the actual issue of alarming concern is the decreased concentration of carbonate ions in sea water, as the ocean's alkalinity has been significantly depleted as it buffers against pH change. But, NO, I'm not going to start writing CO2 sequestration instead of carbon sequestration. I wouldn't want to have to define my terms every time I used it, because it is NOT the term that everyone else has been using. IBdaMann wrote:sealover wrote: A FEW DEFINITIONS Edited on 13-09-2024 09:00 |
| 13-09-2024 11:03 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886) |
Im a BM wrote: No, let's not agree to change the term that everyone has been using. Well, of course when you are posting, you are free to use the term as you wish once you have defined it, but it is not the case that everyone has been using. Only undereducated, scientifically illiterate, leftist political activists have been using that term because they, like you, are trying to apply religious doctrine to carbon in a religious practice that has no place in a supposed science discussion. The usage of the term "carbon sequestration" tells the audience three things immediately: 1. The speaker is preaching the Global Warming religion, and 2. The speaker is a scientifically illiterate political activist, and 3. The speaker is trying to hijack science-related terms for religio-political agendas. I will respect your right to broadcast your message. Im a BM wrote: You are free to insist that you are the ONLY one who is using the scientifically correct term. Nope. I am free to point out how you are using terms incorrectly. Im a BM wrote: But, let's not agree call it CO2 sequestration. ... because it's accurate, and we can't have that, can we? Im a BM wrote: It would be pretty ****ing arrogant of us to think we get to make up terms. ... except that all scientists do. You would know this if you were a scientist. Im a BM wrote: I was never consulted when the term "fossil fuel" was coined. This is not a science term. "Hydrocarbons" is the correct term. Fossils are not burned as fuel. Im a BM wrote: I might have thought of something better. Science already had hydrocarbons. It was not necessary for you to have come up with anything new. Im a BM wrote: But, ever since I was taught the term, I never failed to comprehend that it was not ambiguous in any way. ... except that you are totally confused on the matter. You have no idea why use use improper terms except that you were indoctrinated into a religion that targeted you because you are scientifically illiterate and that requires you to spew stupidity. You think that fossils are burned for fuel. You think that living organisms die and subsequently rot into higher forms of energy in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You never question any religious sermon you are required to regurgitate. You are not the right person to be making decisions about terms. Im a BM wrote: It referred ONLY to petroleum, coal, and natural gas mined from underground. How do fossils relate to hydrocarbons? You can't answer this question because either you know that your religion has been taking advantage of your gullibility lie to you, or you just suck at chemistry. So, which is it? What does coal have to do with hydrocarbons such that you believe that it is somehow intuitive that they be lumped together in the same category? You can't answer this question for the same reason that you can't answer the previous question. You are greatly confused on the matter and have no idea what you are gibbering. Im a BM wrote: Not too hard to memorize the definition. It's not too hard to question what you are being ordered to believe. Notice that I am successfully doing it to you, and it is easy-peezy-lemon-squeezy. Im a BM wrote: If I started calling "fossil fuel" something else, how would anyone else know what I'm talking about? If you instead use the correct term "hydrocarbons", everybody will immediately know that you are referring to a compound of hydrogen and carbon, and that you are not referring to other things that are not in that category. If you use the term "fossil fuel", nobody will know what you are talking about, despite mistakenly thinking that they do; however they will not be able to answer any questions from others when they try to regurgitate your sermon. Im a BM wrote:I have not redefined ocean acidification, but I deliberately put the "acidification" in quotation marks. I get it. When presented with an opportunity to teach others correct terminology, you instead seek to propagate religious-based misconceptions. Personally, I think you do what you do because you know that it is erroneous, but that you don't know exactly how it is erroneous, i.e. you don't understand that pH moving towards 7.0 is "neutralizing" and you are embarrassed at the revelation that you don't know what the **** you are talking about. An actual chemist who believes the ocean's pH is ~8.3 but is moving towards 7.0 would assert that the ocean is neutralizing. No chemist would refer to that as "acidifying." However, your religion's audience is comprised of the stupidest people on the planet, those who only really understand hyped fear and panic. You take pride in counting yourself among them. You understand your marching orders as "spread fear, pretend the ocean is converting to battery acid." So, just as with the term "fossil fuels", you use the term "ocean acidification" because you yourself don't understand the subject matter. Im a BM wrote: Acidification isn't about where you are on the pH scale. It's about which direction you are going. Nope. "Acidification" refers specifically to the process of successfully transitioning from a pH level greater than 7.0 (base) to one of less than 7.0 (acid). The ocean has never acidified, and it doesn't appear that the ocean will ever acidify. You, however, stupidly argue that the ocean's acidification is somehow imminent. That makes you an idiot. Im a BM wrote:The ocean has already been "acidified" from pH 8.3 to pH 8.2 This is why it is absurd to refer to you as a chemist. What you described is "neutralized," not "acidified" ... and no, it hasn't happened to the ocean to any extent that anyone is aware. Im a BM wrote: To be clear, the quotation marks aren't needed. To be clear, you aren't a chemist. Im a BM wrote: The ocean has already been acidified from pH 8.3 to pH 8.2 (edited to correct) Nope. You are chanting at this point. You are simply regurgitating religious dogma that you have been ordered to believe. Im a BM wrote: And THEN explain that the actual issue of alarming concern is the decreased concentration of carbonate ions in sea water, as the ocean's alkalinity has been significantly depleted as it buffers against pH change. This issue only exists in your mind, not in reality. It's the same thing as dead Dominican coral reefs. Both the coral reefs and the ocean's alkalinity are doing fine. I'd ask you why any rational adult should believe that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow being depleted, but we both know that you'll only be able to reach for "... because sea water doesn't evaporate." Im a BM wrote: But, NO, I'm not going to start writing CO2 sequestration instead of carbon sequestration. I expected that. You're an inherently dishonest individual, and the term "CO2 sequestion" represents unacceptable levels of honesty, unlike your dishonest "carbon sequestration" that totally obfuscates what you are attempting to discuss. I totally get it. sealover wrote: Carbon sequestration = removal of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere by some means. I appreciate you admitting to using a ****ed-up definition, i.e. one that deliberately conflates carbon with CO2. The term uses "carbon" while the hidden definition refers only to CO2. That's rather devious. Smooth. Im a BM wrote:IBDaMann wrote:[no answer given] Why no answer? Are you intending to completely deny the CO2 cycle and deny things like water evaporation in order to deceive people into believing that CO2 absorption is only an accumulation and not a cycle? Is this because this is your only hope at maintaining your bogus/dishonest narrative that the ocean is somehow losing its alkalinity? What is the opposit of CO2 sequestration? |
| 13-09-2024 19:23 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
Oh, the futility of trying to have a rational discussion about science with IBdaMann. A quick scan of his post, see how many INSULTS are required to communicate anything about science. It would not be an incorrect translation for your personal understanding of "carbon sequestration" to call it "CO2 sequestration". But the term would have to be defined clearly every time you use it if you wanted a scientist to know what you mean when you say it. It might be assumed that you are referring to atmospheric CO2, but who knows? It is understood to be atmospheric CO2 when you say "carbon sequestration", rather than "CO2 sequestration". So, if I were not an "undereducated, scientifically illiterate, leftist political activist", I would know that coal is NOT fossil fuel. I would know that the scientifically correct term for coal is "hydrocarbon". Maybe in the process, I would learn WHY coal is classified as a "hydrocarbon". That might help me understand why lignin is really supposed to be classified as a carbohydrate. Because I keep getting the chemical terms all wrong. I'm going to have to look up the definition for "hydrocarbon" again, and look up the chemical formula and structure of coal, so I can FINALLY learn this stuff. Apparently, I am "trying to apply religious doctrine to carbon in a religious practice that has no place in a supposed science discussion". Sorry. My bad. I need to go back to the books and try to figure out where I got it all wrong. I wasn't fully aware of it, but apparently I "think that living organisms die and subsequently rot into higher forms of energy, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics." I'm not sure what "higher forms of energy" even are. I thought that the whole process was exothermic in every step. I thought that during every transformation, energy was released. Some of the products look more organized than the reactants, but that decrease in entropy was paid for by the energy released in the overall reaction. But, I didn't even know that coal is a hydrocarbon, so I'm probably wrong about a lot of other things as well. Coal is fossil fuel (look it up if you don't believe me). Fossil fuel is hydrocarbon (You enlightened me to that). Coal must be hydrocarbon. "You were indoctrinated into a religion that targeted you because you are scientifically illiterate.. either you know that your religion has been taking advantage of your gullibility to lie to you, or you just suck at chemistry." "To be clear, you are not a chemist." Maybe I am not, but I have fooled a whole lot of other gullible idiots into believing that I AM a chemist. Literally hundreds of teams of chemists have published peer-reviewed research in which they credit me for making important discoveries in chemisty. But I will NEVER be able to fool a TRUE scientist such as you. As usual you evaded the only "question" I actually asked you to answer. Is there even ONE journal you can name that meets your standards for being "truly scientific". Among the reasons you might not be able to answer Perhaps you have never actually seen such a journal. Perhaps you can't remember the name of any such journal. Perhaps you know that ANY scientific journal you can name will prove that you are wrong about how scientists "always define their terms", in the manner that you insist terms be defined. "You are simply regurgitating religious dogma that you have been ordered to believe" Apparently, I am a very religious person. "You would know this if you were a scientist" I DO know that IBdaMann posts are way too long and tedious, completely uninformative, and laced with too many insults and false accusations. Enjoy your echo chamber, Mr. Chemistry Genius! IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote: No, let's not agree to change the term that everyone has been using. |
| 13-09-2024 20:05 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
sealover wrote: You aren't. You deny science. sealover wrote: You are describing yourself again, and you are discussing any theory of science. You are only denying them. sealover wrote: Carbon is not carbon dioxide. sealover wrote: You don't mean anything. You are just echoing a buzzword that somebody told you to use. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'fossil fuel'. Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel. sealover wrote: Coal is not a hydrocarbon. sealover wrote: Coal is not a hydrocarbon. sealover wrote: Lignin is a carbohydrate. sealover wrote: Don't try to be condescending. You refuse to learn anything. sealover wrote: This part is true. IBDaMann is correct in saying this. sealover wrote: I know you won't. sealover wrote: DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! sealover wrote: Word games won't work. Stop playing word games. sealover wrote: Now you're just denying endothermic reactions. sealover wrote: Entropy is not 'organization'. sealover wrote: Coal is not a hydrocarbon. sealover wrote: Coal is not a fossil. Fossils aren't used as fuel. sealover wrote: Fossils aren't hydrocarbons and they don't burn. sealover wrote: Coal is not a hydrocarbon. sealover wrote: IBDaMann is absolutely correct here. sealover wrote: IBDaMann is absolutely correct here as well. sealover wrote: Big hairy deal. That doesn't make you a chemist. sealover wrote: Chemistry does not use consensus. Chemistry has no voting bloc. You have made no 'discoveries'. sealover wrote: This part is true. sealover wrote: No. RQAA. sealover wrote: He did answer. RQAA. sealover wrote: That you are. You are a fundamentalist believing in a false religion (in fact, several). sealover wrote: You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-09-2024 23:48 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
What is the correct term for vegetable oil? "Carbohydrate" "Fossil fuel" or hydrocarbon? Vegetable oil is part of the entire plant. "The entire plant is just carbohydrates and some protein" ITN Since vegetable oil is not protein, by default it is a carbohydrate. The proper term, for what people erroneously call "fossil fuel" is hydrocarbon. Vegetable oil IS a hydrocarbon, say the uneducated. (or is that blasphemy?) Hydrocarbon is the CORRECT term for so-called "fossil fuel". Therefore, vegetable oil must be "fossil fuel". And word games are a very poor substitute for discussion of science. Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 14-09-2024 01:23 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: So stop playing your word games and stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-09-2024 08:28 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
Definition of Some Terms for Thread Terms such as "organic" and "inorganic" are ubiquitous in any biogeochemistry discussion. Understanding the distinction requires some knowledge of the oxidation state or oxidation number of the atoms involved. Whether an atom ANY ELEMENT OTHER THAN CARBON is "organic" or "inorganic" depends on 1. whether or not that atom is bonded to a carbon atom. Nitrogen atoms, for example, if they are not bonded to carbon atoms, they are "inorganic" nitrogen. 2. if it is bonded to carbon, what is the oxidation state of that carbon atom. Is it bonded to an atom of organic carbon or an atom of inorganic carbon? Nitrogen atoms bonded to atoms of organic carbon (e.g. amino acids) are organic nitrogen. Nitrogen atoms bonded to atoms of inorganic carbon (e.g. urea) are inorganic nitrogen. Whether CARBON is organic or inorganic depends on its oxidation state (oxidation number) Carbon ATOMS have multiple potential oxidation states, ranging from FULLY oxidized (e.g. CO2), with oxidation number = +4, to FULLY reduced (e.g. CH4), with oxidation number = -4 Intermediate oxidation states include diamond (C), with oxidation number = 0 Carbon atoms with oxidation numbers 0, -1, -2, -3, and -4 are reduced. Carbon atoms with oxidation numbers +1, +2, +3, and +4 are oxidized, to one extent or another. Carbon COMPOUNDS can be calculated for a net oxidation number of all the atoms. Each atom within the compound has an oxidation number that is combined for summation. The oxidation number for each atom is a whole number in the single digits, either positive, negative, or zero. Summing up the oxidation numbers of all the atoms in a neutral compound ALWAYS comes out to ZERO. Carbon dioxide, for example. The carbon is FULLY oxidized, with oxidation number = +4 The oxygen is FULLY reduced, with oxidation number = -2 There are TWO oxygen atoms and ONE carbon atom. +4 + -2 + -2 = 0 Zero is the oxidation number for CO2. On the other hand, the sum of oxidation numbers of atoms in a compound is NOT zero if the compound carries an ion charge. Carbon dioxide, CO2, has oxidation number of zero. Carbonate ion, CO3(2-), has TWO negative charges as an anion (-2). The oxidation number for carbonate ion = -2 So, for simplicity, the oxidation state of a carbon atoms is not a binary, either/or, fully oxidized or fully reduced. Is is somewhere along a gradient of nine distinct oxidation states, with nine distinct oxidation numbers. But it covers all bases for most discussion to just say the carbon is oxidized or reduced, without quantifying exactly HOW oxidized or reduced. Indeed, it is only the most FULLY oxidized state of carbon, +4 that is unambiguously inorganic. Nearly all the OTHER carbon in the world is unambiguously organic (reduced), with oxidation numbers between zero and -4. There is with some controversy over what to call the borderline cases. (mid range oxidized carbon, from 1 to 3), but none of these rarer cases apply here. ---------- A FEW DEFINITIONS Carbon sequestration = removal of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere by some means. I suppose they could have called it "carbon dioxide sequestration" when they coined the term, but it saves us all time now to have it shortened. Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. Organic (acid, nitrogen, alkalinity, matter..) as a scientific term, the prefix "organic" means it contains or is attached to organic carbon atoms. Organic nitrogen is a nitrogen atom attached to a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state. Amino acids contain organic nitrogen. The nitrogen in ammonia (NH3) is INORGANIC nitrogen, as it is NOT attached to organic carbon. The nitrogen in nitrate(NO3-) is INORGANIC nitrogen - No organic C attached The nitrogen in urea, CO(NH2)2, is attached to a carbon atom. But urea does NOT contain organic nitrogen. The carbon atom in urea is in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state, and it is INORGANIC carbon. Therefore, urea nitrogen is INORGANIC nitrogen. Inorganic carbon = carbon atom in chemically oxidized oxidation state. Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. I suppose they might have been more specific when they coined the term, because there is a distinction between organic carbon ATOMS and organic carbon COMPOUNDS. An organic carbon ATOM is in a chemically reduced oxidation state. And organic carbon COMPOUND does not have an oxidation state that is in either reduced or oxidized form. There are only FOUR compounds of INORGANIC CARBON that matter for this thread. They are carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Other inorganic carbon compounds DO exist, such as urea and carbon monoxide. They are sort of "borderline", with carbon only partially oxidized. Inorganic carbon compounds (CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, etc.) contains atoms of carbon in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state. There is a VERY important difference between a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state versus a carbon atom in oxidized oxidation state. ENERGY. Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon. Energy is consumed when inorganic carbon is reduced to organic carbon. Combustion releases energy as organic carbon gets oxidized. Photosynthesis consumes energy (solar) as inorganic carbon gets reduced. There are THOUSANDS of compounds of ORGANIC CARBON. Tens of thousands, in fact, of unique chemical compounds, all containing organic carbon. Every chemical compound containing organic carbon is called "organic". In organic chemistry, these can all be designated as "R" R-OH, for example, is an organic carbon compound with a hydroxyl (-OH) group attached. There are at least a thousand distinct compounds that can all be properly designated as R-OH. In this case, if R is -CH3, R-OH is methyl alcohol, or methanol. If R is -CH2CH3. R-OH is ethyl alcohol, or ethanol. For purposes of this thread, we'll take the alcohols a little farther. If R is just a single unattached benzene ring, then R-OH is PHENOL or benzenol. If R is more than one benzene ring, or even just one benzene ring with anything attached to it other than a single hydroxyl group, R-OH is a phenol, but it is not phenol. There is only one specific chemical compound with the unique name "phenol", which is C6H5OH, also known as benzenol, carboxylic acid, and phenolic acid. ================================== * edit and correction inserted C6H5OH is NOT carboxylic acid. C6H5OH is CARBOLIC acid, one of the R-OH's R-COOH is carboxylic acid. My habit when I go back and see a mistake in something I posted, is to correct the error and acknowledge the mistake. If someone else had pointed it out to me first, I would not have denied the mistake. I would have openly acknowledged it in a humble enough manner. If someone asked me to explain what the apparent mistake might have been intended to mean, I would certainly try to be intellectually honest about what I thought I was communicating at the time. I would not revise the story to claim it was actually quite correct, when viewed through a convoluted obfuscation. If someone wanted me to offer an explanation for why I may have called it carboxylic acid at one time and carbolic acid at another time, I would DENY that one of my claims was clearly WRONG. I would not EVADE THE QUESTION with a non answer such as "RQAA". But, that's just me. ==================================== There are thousands of different chemical compounds that are all classified as phenols, but only ONE of them is NAMED phenol. Distinct classes of organic carbon compounds can be identified by what group is attached to the R involved. R-COOH, for example. Organic carbon compounds with a carboxylic group. These are all carboxylic acids. Organic acids. One of the two kinds of organic acids. If R is -CH2CH3, then R-COOH is acetic acid. For purposes of this thread, the organic compounds of greatest interest are... POLYPHENOL CARBOXYLIC ACIDS, also known as polyphenols or tannins. Polyphenol carboxylic acids contain multiple benzene rings. Those benzene rings have carboxylic (-COOH) and hydroxyl (-OH) groups attached. Up to three different hydroxyl groups might be attached to a single benzene ring, and a carboxylic group is often attached to the same benzene ring as hydroxyl groups. The configuration of carboxylic and hydroxyl groups in the polyphenol structure give it many special properties. If two hydroxyl groups on the same benzene ring are in adjacent "ortho" position, this enables the polyphenol to act as a complexing ligand, binding to proteins, metals, carbohydrates, etc. If the polyphenol benzene rings have one hydroxyl group and one carboxylic group in adjacent "ortho" position, this provides even stronger complexing ligand power than the ortho di-hydroxy groups. Much more metal chelating power. So, polyphenols are phenol carboxylic acids that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites to form strong complexes with proteins, metals, and more. And don't let the bully intimidate you when he yells "there is no such thing as organic carbon" ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling. The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter. Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form. Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses. Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter. We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen. |
| 14-09-2024 21:42 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: And now for some more buzzwords and bad chemistry... Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM wrote: Atoms do not have oxidation states. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. No atom is organic. Im a BM wrote: Nitrogen is not organic. A compound is not an element. Im a BM wrote: Carbon does not have an 'oxidation state'. Carbon is carbon. Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not an acid. Nitrogen is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Carbon does not have an 'oxidation state'. Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Carbon has no 'oxidation state'. Im a BM wrote: Carbon has no 'oxidation state'. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. Methane is not carbon. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not a compound. Carbon has no 'oxidation state'. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Oxygen is not carbon dioxide. Im a BM wrote: Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Carbon has no 'oxidation state'. Im a BM wrote: Carbon cannot be reduced. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Carbon has no 'oxidation state'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 17-09-2024 18:46 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling. The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter. Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form. Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses. Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter. We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen. |
| 17-09-2024 19:04 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
Definition of Some Terms for Thread Terms such as "organic" and "inorganic" are ubiquitous in any biogeochemistry discussion. Understanding the distinction requires some knowledge of the oxidation state or oxidation number of the atoms involved. Whether an atom of ANY ELEMENT OTHER THAN CARBON (e.g. organo phosphorus or organo chlorine) is "organic" or "inorganic" depends on: 1. Whether or not that atom is bonded to a carbon atom. Nitrogen atoms, for example, if they are not bonded to carbon atoms, they are "inorganic" nitrogen. 2. If that element other than carbon it is bonded to carbon, what is the oxidation state of that carbon atom? Is it bonded to an atom of organic carbon or an atom of inorganic carbon? Nitrogen atoms bonded to atoms of organic carbon (e.g. amino acids) are organic nitrogen. Nitrogen atoms bonded to atoms of inorganic carbon (e.g. urea) are inorganic nitrogen. Whether CARBON is organic or inorganic depends on its oxidation state (oxidation number) Carbon ATOMS have multiple potential oxidation states, ranging from FULLY oxidized (e.g. CO2), with oxidation number = +4, to FULLY reduced (e.g. CH4), with oxidation number = -4 Intermediate oxidation states include diamond (C), with oxidation number = 0 Carbon atoms with oxidation numbers 0, -1, -2, -3, and -4 are reduced. Carbon atoms with oxidation numbers +1, +2, +3, and +4 are oxidized, to one extent or another. Carbon COMPOUNDS can be calculated for a net oxidation number of all the atoms. Each atom within the compound has an oxidation number that is combined for summation. The oxidation number for each atom is a whole number in the single digits, either positive, negative, or zero. Summing up the oxidation numbers of all the atoms in a NEUTRAL compound ALWAYS comes out to ZERO. Carbon dioxide, for example. The carbon is FULLY oxidized, with oxidation number = +4 The oxygen is FULLY reduced, with oxidation number = -2 There are TWO oxygen atoms and ONE carbon atom. +4 + -2 + -2 = 0 Zero is the oxidation number for CO2. On the other hand, the sum of oxidation numbers of atoms in a compound is NOT zero if the compound carries an ION CHARGE. Carbon dioxide, CO2, is neutral and has oxidation number of zero. Carbonate ion, CO3(2-), has TWO negative charges as an anion (-2). The oxidation number for carbonate ion = -2 So, for simplicity, the oxidation state of a carbon atoms is not a binary, either/or, fully oxidized or fully reduced. Is is somewhere along a gradient of nine distinct oxidation states, with nine distinct oxidation numbers. But it covers all bases for most discussion to just say the carbon is "oxidized" or "reduced", without quantifying exactly HOW oxidized or reduced. Indeed, it is only the most FULLY oxidized state of carbon, +4 that is unambiguously INORGANIC. Nearly all the OTHER carbon in the world is unambiguously ORGANIC (reduced), with oxidation numbers between zero and -4. There is with some controversy over what to call the borderline cases. (mid range oxidized carbon, from 1 to 3), but none of these rarer cases apply here. ---------- A FEW MORE DEFINITIONS Carbon sequestration = removal of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere by some means. I suppose they could have called it "atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration" when they coined the term, but it saves us all time now to have it shortened. Organic carbon = carbon atom in chemically reduced oxidation state. Organic (acid, nitrogen, alkalinity, matter..) as a scientific term, the prefix "organic" means it contains or is attached to organic carbon atoms. Organic nitrogen is a nitrogen atom attached to a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state. Amino acids contain organic nitrogen. The nitrogen in ammonia (NH3) is INORGANIC nitrogen, as it is NOT attached to organic carbon. The nitrogen in nitrate(NO3-) is INORGANIC nitrogen - No organic C attached The nitrogen in urea, CO(NH2)2, is attached to a carbon atom. But urea does NOT contain organic nitrogen. The carbon atom in urea is in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state, and it is INORGANIC carbon. Therefore, urea nitrogen is INORGANIC nitrogen. There are only FOUR compounds of INORGANIC CARBON that matter for this thread. They are carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Other inorganic carbon compounds DO exist, such as urea and carbon monoxide. They are sort of "borderline", with carbon only partially oxidized. Inorganic carbon compounds (CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, etc.) contains atoms of carbon in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state. There is a VERY important difference between a carbon atom in reduced oxidation state versus a carbon atom in oxidized oxidation state. ENERGY. Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon. Energy is consumed when inorganic carbon is reduced to organic carbon. Combustion releases energy as organic carbon gets oxidized. Photosynthesis consumes energy (solar) as inorganic carbon gets reduced. There are THOUSANDS of compounds of ORGANIC CARBON. Tens of thousands, in fact, of unique chemical compounds, all containing organic carbon. Every chemical compound containing organic carbon is called "organic". In organic chemistry, these can all be designated as "R" R-OH, for example, is an organic carbon compound with a hydroxyl (-OH) group attached. There are at least a thousand distinct compounds that can all be properly designated as R-OH. In this case, if R is -CH3, R-OH is methyl alcohol, or methanol. If R is -CH2CH3 (ethyl group), R-OH is ethyl alcohol, or ethanol. For purposes of this thread, we'll take the alcohols a little farther. If R is just a single unattached benzene ring, then R-OH is PHENOL or benzenol. If R is more than one benzene ring, or even just one benzene ring with anything attached to it other than a single hydroxyl group, R-OH is a phenol, but it is not phenol. There is only one specific chemical compound with the unique name "phenol", which is C6H5OH, also known as benzenol, carbolic acid, and phenolic acid. There are thousands of different chemical compounds that are all classified as phenols, but only ONE of them is NAMED phenol. Distinct classes of organic carbon compounds can be identified by what group is attached to the R involved, or which distinguishing group occurs between two different organic compounds (e.g. R-terpene-R) R-COOH, for example. Organic carbon compounds with a carboxylic group. These are all carboxylic acids. Organic acids. One of the two kinds of organic acids. If R is -CH2CH3 (ethyl group), then R-COOH is acetic acid. For purposes of this thread, the organic compounds of greatest interest are... PHENOL CARBOXYLIC ACIDS, also known as polyphenols or tannins. Polyphenol carboxylic acids contain multiple benzene rings. Those benzene rings have carboxylic (-COOH) and hydroxyl (-OH) groups attached. Up to three different hydroxyl groups might be attached to a single benzene ring, and a carboxylic group is often attached to the same benzene ring as hydroxyl groups. The configuration of carboxylic and hydroxyl groups in the polyphenol structure give it many special properties. If two hydroxyl groups on the same benzene ring are in adjacent "ortho" position, this enables the polyphenol to act as a complexing ligand, binding to proteins, metals, carbohydrates, etc. If the polyphenol benzene rings have one hydroxyl group and one carboxylic group in adjacent "ortho" position, this provides even stronger complexing ligand power than the ortho di-hydric (two hydroxy) groups. Much more metal chelating power. So, polyphenols are phenol carboxylic acids that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites to form strong complexes with proteins, metals, and more. Polyphenols play a very important role as regulators of carbon and nitrogen cycling. |
| 18-09-2024 01:41 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-09-2024 01:42 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 19-10-2024 23:46 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
Whether or not the US election of 2024 turns out to be the last free election we ever have, it will almost certainly be the last one that I ever get to witness. The global environmental crisis will certainly get worse before it gets better. If it ever does get better. I am grateful to have lived long enough to see the new scientific paper that came out this April (2024), cited below. I am grateful that the knowledge I helped to discover about carbon and nitrogen cycling is being applied in the newest research, to help humanity address climate change. The very first post of this thread gives a broad background on the role of tannins in carbon sequestration and mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions. There will certainly be no response to this from the local trolls worth reading. However, it does remain here on a free website that can be accessed anywhere, with the potential for being seen by someone who cares about climate change and actually understands a bit of science. This paper was published April 10, 2024 B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932. This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research. It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley. At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective. Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense. At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling. Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil. It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper. |
| 20-10-2024 04:07 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
sealover wrote: Democrat election fraud has already started for the 2024 election, Robert. sealover wrote: What is the so-called 'global environmental crisis'? Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: Buzzword fallacy. Apparently you think 'global environmental crisis' has a unit of measure...? sealover wrote: Science is not a paper, Robert. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change, Robert. You did not discover carbon or nitrogen. sealover wrote: Carbon is not tannin, Robert. NOx emissions have already been dealt with in automobiles using simple plumbing and a valve. sealover wrote: You cannot respond to yourself, Robert. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change, Robert. sealover wrote: You have already discarded the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the law of motion, the law of gravitation, Gibb's law, acid-base chemistry, organic chemistry, the periodic table of the elements, etc. You have also discarded statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, random number mathematics, and algebra. You have also discarded logic. All you do is spew buzzwords to 'thound thmart', whine about the forum, spam, and insult people. You are a nothing, Robert. sealover wrote: Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-11-2024 19:32 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
The global environmental crisis will certainly get worse before it gets better. If it ever does get better. I am grateful to have lived long enough to see the new scientific paper that came out this April (2024), cited below. I am grateful that the knowledge I helped to discover about carbon and nitrogen cycling is being applied in the newest research, to help humanity address climate change. The very first post of this thread gives a broad background on the role of tannins in carbon sequestration and mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions. This paper was published April 10, 2024 B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932. This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research. It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley. At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective. Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense. At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling. Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil. It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper. The most relevant posts of this thread are all compiled, beginning about 1/3 way down page 22 |
| 25-11-2024 04:23 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1769) |
The global environmental crisis will certainly get worse before it gets better. If it ever does get better. I am grateful to have lived long enough to see the new scientific paper that came out this April (2024), cited below. I am grateful that the knowledge I helped to discover about carbon and nitrogen cycling is being applied in the newest research, to help humanity address climate change. The very first post of this thread gives a broad background on the role of tannins in carbon sequestration and mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions. This paper was published April 10, 2024 B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932. This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research. It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley. At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective. Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense. At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling. Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil. It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper. The most relevant posts of this thread are all compiled, beginning about 1/3 way down page 22 |
| 25-11-2024 22:47 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
sealover wrote: There isn't one. sealover wrote: Science is not a paper. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Tannins is not a chemical. Why are you afraid of carbon? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 26-11-2024 00:24 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
<---- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow) It will open the "sealover" profile page. The "Last 10 posts:" shows ten biogeochemistry-related threads. Any of them can be opened with a click. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The global environmental crisis will certainly get worse before it gets better. If it ever does get better. I am grateful to have lived long enough to see the new scientific paper that came out this April (2024), cited below. I am grateful that the knowledge I helped to discover about carbon and nitrogen cycling is being applied in the newest research, to help humanity address climate change. The very first post of this thread gives a broad background on the role of tannins in carbon sequestration and mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions. This paper was published April 10, 2024 B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932. This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research. It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley. At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective. Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense. At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling. Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil. It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper. The most relevant posts of this thread are all compiled, beginning about 1/3 way down page 22 |
| 26-11-2024 06:28 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. Stop spamming. Im a BM wrote: Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: new paper citing my polyphenol work30-11-2024 22:48 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1311) |
<---- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow) It will open the "sealover" profile page. The "Last 10 posts:" shows ten biogeochemistry-related threads. Any of them can be opened with a click. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This new paper came out 24 days ago (November, 2024). It actually cites my FIRST paper published about polyphenols. "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient...", published in Plant and Soil, volume 171, pages 255-262, in 1995. This newest paper, just out a few weeks ago, is: M. Gabriela Mattera, et al. 2024. Intraspecific variation in leaf (poly)phenolic content of a southern hemisphere beech (Nothofagus antarctica) growing under different environmental conditions. Nature, Scientific Reports (2024) 14:20050. Investigation of intraspecific variation of polyphenol (aka tannin) content in tree leaves as a response to different environmental conditions is something I kind of pioneered in 1995. Soil properties are a very important environmental condition influencing how much polyphenol a plant will need to make in order to be competitive. Beech trees growing on acidic, silica-rich soils produce higher concentrations of polyphenols. Consequently they form decomposition-resistant leaf litter that accumulates above the mineral soil surface. (mor type humus) Beech trees growing on near-neutral pH, calcareous soils produce lower concentrations of polyphenols. Consequently they form easily-decomposed leaf litter that is rapidly incorporated into the mineral soil. (mull type humus) The capacity of trees to regulate decomposition and accumulation of soil organic matter through alteration of their polyphenol content is of GREAT SIGNIFICANCE for efforts to mitigate climate change. One goal of the research in this most recent paper (Mattera et al) was to "..also provide some clues about the performance of N. antarctica under future climate scenarios." Climate change has harmful feedbacks on plant chemistry. It is hoped that conscious management of plant chemistry could have eventually have beneficial feedbacks on climate change. To maximize carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. ------------------------------- The global environmental crisis will certainly get worse before it gets better. If it ever does get better. I am grateful to have lived long enough to see the new scientific paper that came out this April (2024), cited below. I am grateful that the knowledge I helped to discover about carbon and nitrogen cycling is being applied in the newest research, to help humanity address climate change. The very first post of this thread gives a broad background on the role of tannins in carbon sequestration and mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions. This paper was published April 10, 2024 B. Adamczyk. 2024. Tannins and climate change: Are tannins able to stabilize carbon in the soil? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 72, Issue 16, pages 8928-8932. This paper cites my tannin investigations and is highly relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. The author and I are quite familiar with each other's research. It was 35 years ago when I first became fully immersed in tannin (also known as polyphenol) research as a grad student at UC Berkeley. At that time, anti herbivore defense was presumed to be the sole adaptive value for plants to make tannins, despite little evidence that they are effective. Convoluted theories were created to explain why plant communities on highly infertile, acidic soils produced so much more tannin than plants on better soil, as somehow consistent with anti herbivore defense. At that time, nobody considered how tannin production could benefit the plants that produce them through their impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling. Tannins slow the decomposition of plant or soil organic matter they come into contact with. Tannins themselves are the substrate from which most soil humic acids are formed, having centuries long mean residence time in soil. It is highly gratifying to see this finally reach the point where the application to address climate change is being so explicitly identified in the title of a new paper. The most relevant posts of this thread are all compiled, beginning about 1/3 way down page 22 |
| 01-12-2024 20:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22643) |
Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands | 141 | 27-11-2024 03:57 |
| carbon footprint | 175 | 20-05-2024 21:13 |
| Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers | 1 | 06-07-2023 23:52 |
| Uses for solid carbon | 30 | 06-07-2023 23:51 |
| Biden wants to force 'carbon capture' | 8 | 21-06-2023 12:55 |