Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual[/b][/i]

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "l my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

That is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as more than 2.5 billion views of Chicken Song.

https://youtu.be/msSc7Mv0QHY?si=QwT4yLnFuRDlXS4z

Spongy Iris, like myself, you found this website by doing a Google search.

climate-debate.com used to be easy to find with a Google search.

In the past two months, Google wasn't doing this anymore. Or pretty much for the past two years now, Google stopped directing people to this website.

How did the 3300 viewers even find the website to open up the thread?

They weren't just looking for escapist entertainment for a quick laugh.

They were trying to find something.

I did a few Google searches again a few minutes ago.

You can't find this website searching for general climate discussion sites with Google, as you could have done up until about two years ago.

Even the search terms "biogeochemistry and climate-debate.com" or "carbon sequestration and climate-debate.com" with Google won't show this website. I suppose if I had gone through enough pages, it was there. But Google used to show this website on page 1 for searches with the most general climate discussion terms.

Maybe there a whole bunch of still-in-the-closet, biogeochemist wannabes out there.

I'm glad they are able to find my thread.

Whoever they are and however they do it...

I'm guessing they are not the kind of folks who look for chicken dance videos.

I have also noticed that climate-debate.com can no longer be found through a Google search, as it could when I first joined in 2019.

Perhaps they are old viewers who have known about this site since a while ago, like us, or perhaps they got referred to the site by someone.

Never the less, when references to choking chickens and getting lots of view are made, that is a perfect invitation for sharing the great music remix masterpiece, Chicken Song.

You may also have noticed the tune is a remix of Old McDonald Had a Farm, and said subject matter is relevant to carbon sequestration if the farm has a lot of plant growth.

Google does not steer suckers to exposed entrapment sites like this one. Why? because exposed sites have no purpose as all the intended entrapeese are aware of the entrappers which negates the entrapment factor.

What is climate-debate.com supposed to entrap people into doing? Getting pissed off at annoying comments, then ranting and raving about it?

Well climate-debate.com has provoked me into sharing my positions. Maybe I have been ensnared!

So you actually believe what you see is all what it claims to be. LOL if this were a real climate debate site, it would be getting a post a second and be selling ads for electric cars and solar panels. Thus this place is fake. Get over it, I know and have told everyone else who might be steered here by the selective DOD/NSA/CIA/FBI/QVC Google searches

I find the engagement amusing.

There is some traffic... perhaps it legacy traffic...

A lot of other discussion boards would ban or drown out comments like mine. I started my own subreddit, but it gets way less traffic than here, and no engagement.

Sometimes I can get a bit of engagement commenting, even occasionally posting, in subreddits such as climate change, semen retention, no fap, gang stalking, and conspiracies. I have never gotten a reply commenting and posting in UFO and paranormal subreddits. I find the engagement here more amusing.

Looks like I finally managed to get Bryan Johnson's attention on X, but I doubt he will take my comments seriously. I will probably consider that mission accomplished and stop bothering him now.

Perhaps I should develop my rock star skills and start putting out more covers.

All social media sites incorporate one or multiple countries secret service data mines. Reddit included, that said reddit apparently exist for IQ less people.

There is also this website called Deny Ignorance which I visit almost as much as this one.

It might be right up your ULTRA MAGA alley...

It used to be called Above Top Secret, but before ATS got shut down they started DI.

It's basically a conspiracy theory site with a heavy alt right slant.

They are not as loosey goosey about censorship as this site, so it's a better place to practice my politeness than here.

Everything labeled a conspiracy theory, a CIA term, is real, so the only conspiracy theory that is left, is that there are conspiracy theories, when there are not.

Example, nothing can travel faster than light.
95% of the universe is dark matter and energy.
Chelsea Clinton is biologically related to Bill Clinton.
The JFK files were all released.
Non mentally ill people go to Disney.
John McCain did not blow up the Forrestall aircraft carrier.
The FDA puts limits on tobacco and alcohol that kill 2 million Americans per year to shrink social security payouts.
There are American news anchors that are not part of the CIA media wing.
Joe Biden knew that he was president.

I like what you said, something like, the biggest conspiracy is reality.

Define reality

sealover wrote:
Shame on you two, Swan and Spongy Iris.

Between the two of you, you have about 10,000 "climate debate" posts.

Neither of you even pretend to give a shit about carbon sequestration or climate change.

Neither of you are capable of staying on a thread you start on a topic you DO care about.

Perhaps this is because the threads you start are of too little interest to anyone beside yourselves to keep a discussion alive.

Parasites or perhaps just trespassers, I think you both know that just about any other website would have a moderator who would intervene to ban you.

The viewer who really DOES give a shit about climate change and is curious about carbon sequestration will have to scroll past this SIX FOOT LONG POST (above this one).

sealover wrote:
July 3, 2025 News story from University of Leeds research paper

"When rainforests died, the planet caught fire: New clues from Earth's greatest Extinction" (article from ScienceDaily, similar article in USA Today)

According to some new theories, the mass extinction 252 million years ago was initially triggered by Siberian vulcanism, but went on to wipe out life on a much larger scale because rainforests were lost as a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The point is that the live ecosystem still has a lot of influence over the composition of the atmosphere. As we continue to directly cut down rainforests with our tools, we also fell them on a large scale with the climate change we have induced. Now prone to devastating wildfires due to drought, "rainforests" aren't what they used to be. Just one wildfire in the Amazon a few years back emitted more CO2 to the atmosphere than all of Europe's vehicles that year.

This new article and research is about the historic role of rainforests as carbon "sinks" to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 low enough to prevent over heating the planet. Among other things, the research suggests that the rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide went on to kill most marine life 252 million years ago. Death by acidification - not the sulfuric acid from the initial Siberian vulcanism that triggered the change, but rather the carbonic acid from all that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, due to the rainforest getting killed off.

I think it was fifteen years ago when I first read about the quantities of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from the disturbed peatlands of Southeast Asia. An undisturbed peatland is a "sink" for carbon dioxide, taking it out of the atmosphere and accumulating organic carbon in the waterlogged soil. Drained for agriculture, a peatland becomes a huge SOURCE of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere. Some estimates fifteen years ago suggested that CO2 emissions from the Southeast Asian peatlands being drained for agriculture ALREADY exceeded CO2 emissions from all human use of fossil fuel.

The point is that our fossil fuel emissions are becoming a minority part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The quantity of CO2 emitted directly from burning fuel is now exceeded by the quantity of CO2 emitted due to OTHER human activities, such as deforestation and drainage of wetlands for agriculture.

Climate change itself, due primarily to increased CO2, brings about increased CO2 emission as soil organic matter decomposes more rapidly, tundra thaws, wildfires occur more frequently, forests dry out and die, and deserts expand.


Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails

If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.

First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff.

Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough.

There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere. Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. The warming of the tundra. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires. The loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere as ecosystems dry out. The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink".

Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel. Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide. Drainage of wetlands for agriculture, exposing the enormous reservoir of organic carbon to oxidation and emission of carbon dioxide. The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere.

Some are inventing technological devices to try to do this. Others are attempting to enable natural ecosystems to sequester more carbon dioxide.

In theory, if we provided enough bioavailable iron to the sea, it would act as fertilizer for a whole lot more marine photosynthesis to sequester CO2.

Natural ecosystems are often very good at sequestering carbon dioxide.

Allowing those natural ecosystems to remain intact, or even restoring them where we have already caused damage, could help a lot to offset the carbon dioxide contribution of fossil fuel combustion.

This thread is about how natural ecosystems use polyphenols to regulate the carbon cycle and maximize sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide into stable soil organic matter with a very long residence time.

Peasant agricultural science discovered thousands of years ago how to mimic the nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems in our food production.

Biogeochemists are rediscovering these ancient agroforestry land management practices as a model for deliberate preservation and enhancement of soil organic carbon.


February 23, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out 5 days ago:

Lili Dong et al. 2025. Time-varying associations between absorptive fine roots and leaf litter decomposition across 23 plant species. Soil Biology and Biochemistry Volume 204 109751

gets into how accumulated recalcitrant compounds influence decomposition process. Highly relevant for carbon sequestration in GRASSLANDS, as they compared leaf litter and fine root litter decomposition in 23 different grass species.

---------------------------------------

February 9, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out a few days ago:

Bhupinder Singh Jatana. 2025. Short term mineralization dynamics of meat and bone meal as impacted by different natural amendments. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, (published online February 2, 2025)


The basic idea is to add tannin-rich (i.e. polyphenol-rich) vegetable matter to "hot" compost materials such as meat and bone meal. The tannins slow the decomposition to minimize loss of nitrogen, etc, from the material, transforming it into "cool" compost - slow release fertilizer.

The role of polyphenols as regulators of nitrogen cycling certainly has implications for evolutionary biology. But it has gotten far more attention from agronomists and foresters for its practical applications.

--------------------------------

February 6, 2025 - new paper came out eight days ago citing sealover.

Zhenglin Zhang et al. 2025. Introduction of a Fallow Year to Continuous Rice Systems Enhances Crop Soil Nitrogen Uptake. European Journal of Soil Science, 2025: 76e70046

It makes me happy to see that the knowledge acquired in my published scientific research is being applied to enhance soil nitrogen crop uptake in rice.

Not that I discovered "fallowing", just the role of polyphenols in nitrogen cycling.


January 25, 2025 New one cites "sealover" 1995 pub in NATURE

Plants as our teachers: Long-term Responses of Dwarf Shrub and Bryophyte Communities to Nutrient Addition in a Northern Swedish Island System.

By Agnes Blomgren, this is actually a master's thesis just published at Umea University, Sweden.

Like the pygmy forest where I did polyphenol research, dwarf shrubs and bryophytes grow on these Swedish Islands in places where the soil is virtually devoid of nutrients to support plant growth.

Not a ground breaking new paper directly relevant to climate change, but it is fun to know that master's degree students are still reading my work and citing it as the basis for something in their own research.
----

January 8, 2025 Two new thread-related papers citing "sealover"

came out 5 days ago: M. Ishfaq et al. 2025. Nitrogen phosphorus trade-offs in mangroves. Plant and Soil complete citation to follow.

"sealover" just loves to see his name on a paper about those mangroves.
It includes a BEAUTIFUL graphic cross section of the ecosystem and fluxes of carbon, nitrogen, etc.

also came out 5 days ago: P. Yang et al. 2025. Heating-Induced Redox Property Dynamics of Peat Soil Dissolved Organic Matter in a Simulated Peat Fire: Electron Exchange Capacity and Molecular Characteristics. Biogeochemical Cycling complete citation to follow

Love the title of that journal - Biogeochemical Cycling. And it is about PEAT in coastal wetlands. sealover is happy to see his name attached... take THAT you meanie troll bullies! SOMEBODY thinks i'm a for real science guy.

Check out the first sentences of the abstract:

"Peatlands store one-third of the world's soil organic carbon. Globally increased fires altered peat soil organic matter chemistry.."

Because climate change has dramatically increased the frequency and severity of PEAT FIRES. Did they say "organic carbon"? It figures, since the journal is called "Biogeochemical Cycling", something that doesn't even exist.

It's hard enough to keep the peat waterlogged enough that it doesn't just decompose and disappear as land surface elevation sinks. It also gets torched more than ever before, and it puts a lot of toxic partially burned organic matter into soluble state to contaminate water supplies.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Swan: Sorry kid but the theory is wrong because there literally was no Siberia 252 million years ago because Pangea had not even started to break up yet. Too bad the liars at the university of Leeds did not know this, you did not know either, so perhaps go back to school

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual

Geologists often refer to present day geographic locations of rock formations to identify the position of an ancient site. There was no "Siberia" 252 million years ago. No Siberian tigers were harmed by the "Siberia" vulcanism referred to. The rocks that prove where it happened are found in what is, for the moment, called "Siberia". Maybe in a few more years they'll call it all "Putinland", and future geologists will refer to the "Putinland" vulcanism of 252 million years ago.

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"?

I'm trusting that somebody, somewhere appreciates my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

Even if they expose themselves to the FBI by viewing this website!

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
July 3, 2025 News story from University of Leeds research paper

"When rainforests died, the planet caught fire: New clues from Earth's greatest Extinction" (article from ScienceDaily, similar article in USA Today)

According to some new theories, the mass extinction 252 million years ago was initially triggered by Siberian vulcanism, but went on to wipe out life on a much larger scale because rainforests were lost as a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The point is that the live ecosystem still has a lot of influence over the composition of the atmosphere. As we continue to directly cut down rainforests with our tools, we also fell them on a large scale with the climate change we have induced. Now prone to devastating wildfires due to drought, "rainforests" aren't what they used to be. Just one wildfire in the Amazon a few years back emitted more CO2 to the atmosphere than all of Europe's vehicles that year.

This new article and research is about the historic role of rainforests as carbon "sinks" to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 low enough to prevent over heating the planet. Among other things, the research suggests that the rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide went on to kill most marine life 252 million years ago. Death by acidification - not the sulfuric acid from the initial Siberian vulcanism that triggered the change, but rather the carbonic acid from all that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, due to the rainforest getting killed off.

I think it was fifteen years ago when I first read about the quantities of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from the disturbed peatlands of Southeast Asia. An undisturbed peatland is a "sink" for carbon dioxide, taking it out of the atmosphere and accumulating organic carbon in the waterlogged soil. Drained for agriculture, a peatland becomes a huge SOURCE of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere. Some estimates fifteen years ago suggested that CO2 emissions from the Southeast Asian peatlands being drained for agriculture ALREADY exceeded CO2 emissions from all human use of fossil fuel.

The point is that our fossil fuel emissions are becoming a minority part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The quantity of CO2 emitted directly from burning fuel is now exceeded by the quantity of CO2 emitted due to OTHER human activities, such as deforestation and drainage of wetlands for agriculture.

Climate change itself, due primarily to increased CO2, brings about increased CO2 emission as soil organic matter decomposes more rapidly, tundra thaws, wildfires occur more frequently, forests dry out and die, and deserts expand.


Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails

If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.

First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff.

Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough.

There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere. Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. The warming of the tundra. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires. The loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere as ecosystems dry out. The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink".

Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel. Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide. Drainage of wetlands for agriculture, exposing the enormous reservoir of organic carbon to oxidation and emission of carbon dioxide. The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere.

Some are inventing technological devices to try to do this. Others are attempting to enable natural ecosystems to sequester more carbon dioxide.

In theory, if we provided enough bioavailable iron to the sea, it would act as fertilizer for a whole lot more marine photosynthesis to sequester CO2.

Natural ecosystems are often very good at sequestering carbon dioxide.

Allowing those natural ecosystems to remain intact, or even restoring them where we have already caused damage, could help a lot to offset the carbon dioxide contribution of fossil fuel combustion.

This thread is about how natural ecosystems use polyphenols to regulate the carbon cycle and maximize sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide into stable soil organic matter with a very long residence time.

Peasant agricultural science discovered thousands of years ago how to mimic the nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems in our food production.

Biogeochemists are rediscovering these ancient agroforestry land management practices as a model for deliberate preservation and enhancement of soil organic carbon.


February 23, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out 5 days ago:

Lili Dong et al. 2025. Time-varying associations between absorptive fine roots and leaf litter decomposition across 23 plant species. Soil Biology and Biochemistry Volume 204 109751

gets into how accumulated recalcitrant compounds influence decomposition process. Highly relevant for carbon sequestration in GRASSLANDS, as they compared leaf litter and fine root litter decomposition in 23 different grass species.

---------------------------------------

February 9, 2025 - New paper citing @sealover came out a few days ago:

Bhupinder Singh Jatana. 2025. Short term mineralization dynamics of meat and bone meal as impacted by different natural amendments. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, (published online February 2, 2025)


The basic idea is to add tannin-rich (i.e. polyphenol-rich) vegetable matter to "hot" compost materials such as meat and bone meal. The tannins slow the decomposition to minimize loss of nitrogen, etc, from the material, transforming it into "cool" compost - slow release fertilizer.

The role of polyphenols as regulators of nitrogen cycling certainly has implications for evolutionary biology. But it has gotten far more attention from agronomists and foresters for its practical applications.

--------------------------------

February 6, 2025 - new paper came out eight days ago citing sealover.

Zhenglin Zhang et al. 2025. Introduction of a Fallow Year to Continuous Rice Systems Enhances Crop Soil Nitrogen Uptake. European Journal of Soil Science, 2025: 76e70046

It makes me happy to see that the knowledge acquired in my published scientific research is being applied to enhance soil nitrogen crop uptake in rice.

Not that I discovered "fallowing", just the role of polyphenols in nitrogen cycling.


January 25, 2025 New one cites "sealover" 1995 pub in NATURE

Plants as our teachers: Long-term Responses of Dwarf Shrub and Bryophyte Communities to Nutrient Addition in a Northern Swedish Island System.

By Agnes Blomgren, this is actually a master's thesis just published at Umea University, Sweden.

Like the pygmy forest where I did polyphenol research, dwarf shrubs and bryophytes grow on these Swedish Islands in places where the soil is virtually devoid of nutrients to support plant growth.

Not a ground breaking new paper directly relevant to climate change, but it is fun to know that master's degree students are still reading my work and citing it as the basis for something in their own research.
----

January 8, 2025 Two new thread-related papers citing "sealover"

came out 5 days ago: M. Ishfaq et al. 2025. Nitrogen phosphorus trade-offs in mangroves. Plant and Soil complete citation to follow.

"sealover" just loves to see his name on a paper about those mangroves.
It includes a BEAUTIFUL graphic cross section of the ecosystem and fluxes of carbon, nitrogen, etc.

also came out 5 days ago: P. Yang et al. 2025. Heating-Induced Redox Property Dynamics of Peat Soil Dissolved Organic Matter in a Simulated Peat Fire: Electron Exchange Capacity and Molecular Characteristics. Biogeochemical Cycling complete citation to follow

Love the title of that journal - Biogeochemical Cycling. And it is about PEAT in coastal wetlands. sealover is happy to see his name attached... take THAT you meanie troll bullies! SOMEBODY thinks i'm a for real science guy.

Check out the first sentences of the abstract:

"Peatlands store one-third of the world's soil organic carbon. Globally increased fires altered peat soil organic matter chemistry.."

Because climate change has dramatically increased the frequency and severity of PEAT FIRES. Did they say "organic carbon"? It figures, since the journal is called "Biogeochemical Cycling", something that doesn't even exist.

It's hard enough to keep the peat waterlogged enough that it doesn't just decompose and disappear as land surface elevation sinks. It also gets torched more than ever before, and it puts a lot of toxic partially burned organic matter into soluble state to contaminate water supplies.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Swan: Sorry kid but the theory is wrong because there literally was no Siberia 252 million years ago because Pangea had not even started to break up yet. Too bad the liars at the university of Leeds did not know this, you did not know either, so perhaps go back to school

PS. You may resume choking your chicken as usual

Geologists often refer to present day geographic locations of rock formations to identify the position of an ancient site. There was no "Siberia" 252 million years ago. No Siberian tigers were harmed by the "Siberia" vulcanism referred to. The rocks that prove where it happened are found in what is, for the moment, called "Siberia". Maybe in a few more years they'll call it all "Putinland", and future geologists will refer to the "Putinland" vulcanism of 252 million years ago.

Check it out, Swan! 3300 new "views" of this thread in less than two months. During most of those nearly two months (as of today) this thread was not active and was way down on the list. It was not visible opening the home page.

About 3000 times somebody took the extra step of clicking on "view older threads" in order to be able to open the thread and view it. During two months when the website was mostly "dead", as far as actual posting activity.

I've noticed that when 200 "Guests online" suddenly appear and soon disappear, no additional "views" show up on any active threads.

About fifty times a day, someone opens up this thread to view it.

Who???

Who would want to view a thread about "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"?

I'm trusting that somebody, somewhere appreciates my effort.

Even if they don't have a $130 IQ from their genius investment in Apple Stock.

Even if they expose themselves to the FBI by viewing this website!

47214 views as of now. That is closer to 100 views per day in the past few days. The 300 views in 48 hours may have been a fluke of the long 4th of July weekend.

I remain convinced that whoever the audience is that views it, at least some of them may have genuine scientific interest in the topic. I assume that most viewers have some level of genuine interest, or the thread title alone would discourage them from going out of their way to open it to view it. Or at least to only open it one time to discover they have no interest.