Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Im a BM wrote:
THIS is why they made you CAPTAIN of the debate team, the year your Alma Mater won the regional championship.


Tannin is a carbohydrate because there is no such thing as tannins? As the master controller of the English language, YOU know "tannin" cannot be plural? It's all hidden in your secret dictionary of NOT "buzzword" terms.

Well, I'm struck by the irony of it all.

In the real world, my published discoveries about "tannins", as POLYPHENOLS (which are NOT "carbohydrates") made me famous among actual scientists who are formally trained in the stuff.

At climate-debate.com, a tireless heckler won't stop insisting that "There is no such thing as tannins."

Apparently, my "illiteracy" is MY "problem"!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
THIS is why they made you CAPTAIN of the debate team, the year your Alma Mater won the regional championship.


Tannin is a carbohydrate because there is no such thing as tannins? As the master controller of the English language, YOU know "tannin" cannot be plural? It's all hidden in your secret dictionary of NOT "buzzword" terms.

Well, I'm struck by the irony of it all.

In the real world, my published discoveries about "tannins", as POLYPHENOLS (which are NOT "carbohydrates") made me famous among actual scientists who are formally trained in the stuff.

At climate-debate.com, a tireless heckler won't stop insisting that "There is no such thing as tannins."

Apparently, my "illiteracy" is MY "problem"!

It is.

There are no debates here. Only conversations.

Science is not 'discoveries'. Science is not 'training'. Courtier's fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
]Into the Night wrote:.

.

.

---------------------------
No, lignin is NOT a carbohydrate.

Yes, plant cell walls DO contain lignin


Lignin is a complex polymer comprised primarily of aromatic phenols. It is a structural component found in the cell walls of woody plants. It can form strong complexes with carbohydrates and proteins

Ecologists have long been interested in what lignin does when it gets into the soil. The nitrogen bound in protein tannin complexes is difficult for microorganisms to mineralize, and this nitrogen cycles very slowly.

Ecologists also long believed that lignin was the primary source of humic acids in soil, responsible for producing stable organic matter with centuries long mean residence time.

My (1995) paper in Nature was the first to show that lignin wasn't necessarily the most important regulator to influence nitrogen cycling. Plenty of lignin research cited it, but the paper was only a few pages long. Minimal lignin discussion.

My (1998) paper in Biogeochemistry has a great more detail about lignin.

1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions...
Biogeochemistry. Volume 42 pages 189-220.

It has been cited in 456 different peer-reviewed scientific papers or textbooks.

31 pages long, it includes extensive discussion about lignin.

My most famous contribution to understanding lignin chemical ecology was to show the correlation between lignin content and nitrogen release from pine needles. There was none, whereas there was highly significant correlation with tannin content.

And it is highly relevant to the topic of this thread.

Im a BM wrote:
No, lignin is NOT a carbohydrate.

Yes, plant cell walls DO contain lignin

Im a BM wrote:
My (1995) paper in Nature

Im a BM wrote:
My (1998) paper in Biogeochemistry has a great more detail about lignin.

Im a BM wrote:
1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions...

Im a BM wrote:
It has been cited in 456 different peer-reviewed scientific papers or textbooks.

Im a BM wrote:
My most famous contribution to understanding lignin chemical ecology was to show the correlation between lignin content and nitrogen release from pine needles. There was none, whereas there was highly significant correlation with tannin content.

sealover wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:

For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Seems like the hype has flat lined.

Call it the Dead Internet Theory.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Seems like the hype has flat lined.

Call it the Dead Internet Theory.

Spongy Iris, even with your reply and my view of it, the "Views" count is stubbornly stuck at exactly 65,535 for this particular thread.

But the OTHER biogeochemistry threads racked up thousands of "views" during this same four weeks now as THIS thread remains at exactly 65,535 views.

Whatever the source of the effect is, it is not indiscriminate.

I'm thinking that the viewers ARE real human beings with an interest in biogeochemistry, but for some reason this thread cannot display more than 65,535 "views"

Anyone viewing this can do a reality check. Just above the blue box at the bottom of the home page, click on "View older threads (all forums)"


THIS thread will continue to show 65,535 "Views" no matter how many times it is opened again. Other threads will continue to rack up new "views" every time someone opens them.

Im a BM wrote:
For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Im a BM wrote:
Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Well, it's all still here if the viewership ever becomes real.

Im a BM wrote:
Let's see... Okay, here is another new paper citing one of the papers that form the basis of this thread.

TWELVE DAYS AGO another paper came out citing "sealover".

"The relationship between dominant forest mycorrhizal type and the belowground mycobiome of the sugar maple and eastern hemlock", by J Beauregard.

Im a BM wrote:
It begins with the sentence:

"Climate change is imposing significant pressure on forest ecosystems, with many tree species projected to migrate toward the poles in response to changing temperature and precipitation regimes."

Im a BM wrote:
Because regional climate is defined and quantified as temperature and moisture regimes.

Im a BM wrote:
Not the "average" temperature or precipitation, but the distribution over time of regional temperature and precipitation.
Irrational. Paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
A cool, wet winter followed by a long hot summer ("Mediterranean" or California-style) for chaparral type vegetation, is very different than a rainy summer on an annual grassland.

Im a BM wrote:
Soil science has a whole list of different "regimes" to quantitatively distinguish different regional climates.

Im a BM wrote:
The biome boundaries are shifting as the regimes shift with climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
Spongy Iris, even with your reply and my view of it, the "Views" count is stubbornly stuck at exactly 65,535 for this particular thread.

But the OTHER biogeochemistry threads racked up thousands of "views" during this same four weeks now as THIS thread remains at exactly 65,535 views.

Whatever the source of the effect is, it is not indiscriminate.

I'm thinking that the viewers ARE real human beings with an interest in biogeochemistry, but for some reason this thread cannot display more than 65,535 "views"

Anyone viewing this can do a reality check. Just above the blue box at the bottom of the home page, click on "View older threads (all forums)"


THIS thread will continue to show 65,535 "Views" no matter how many times it is opened again. Other threads will continue to rack up new "views" every time someone opens them.

Im a BM wrote: For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views".

Im a BM wrote:Shattering my illusions of a larger audience,

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views".

This is the maximum value of a 16-bit word. Every time you increment thereafter, it either returns to zero and cycles through, or it remains stuck at its maximum value, depending on the software.

Im a BM wrote:Shattering my illusions of a larger audience,

You mean to say that your illusions of library viewership were shattered.

A 16-bit word can represent 16 binary digits (bits), each of which can be 0 or 1.
The maximum value depends on whether the number is unsigned or signed.
Unsigned 16-bit integer
All 16 bits are used for the value:
Max = 2^16 − 1 = 65,535

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views".

This is the maximum value of a 16-bit word. Every time you increment thereafter, it either returns to zero and cycles through, or it remains stuck at its maximum value, depending on the software.

Im a BM wrote:Shattering my illusions of a larger audience,

You mean to say that your illusions of library viewership were shattered.

Wow, did you know that, or did you have to ask Google, what is the significance of 65,535?

A 16-bit word can represent 16 binary digits (bits), each of which can be 0 or 1.
The maximum value depends on whether the number is unsigned or signed.
Unsigned 16-bit integer
All 16 bits are used for the value:
Max = 2^16 − 1 = 65,535

You forgot to say unsigned.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views".

This is the maximum value of a 16-bit word. Every time you increment thereafter, it either returns to zero and cycles through, or it remains stuck at its maximum value, depending on the software.

Im a BM wrote:Shattering my illusions of a larger audience,

You mean to say that your illusions of library viewership were shattered.

Wow, did you know that, or did you have to ask Google, what is the significance of 65,535?

A 16-bit word can represent 16 binary digits (bits), each of which can be 0 or 1.
The maximum value depends on whether the number is unsigned or signed.
Unsigned 16-bit integer
All 16 bits are used for the value:
Max = 2^16 − 1 = 65,535

You forgot to say unsigned.

If this hypothesis is correct, we will soon know if the results are reproducible.

Other biogeochemistry threads are approaching the 65,000 plus views marker.

Maybe they will all stall at 65,535.

In which case, it is consistent with a larger audience who never posts anything, but logs on to view biogeochemistry threads.

edit added: It hadn't even occurred to me to analyze the number itself for clues.

If I had asked Google the question, as I now have: "65,535 is the upper limit for what?"

I would have learned immediately that "It is the maximum value of a 16-bit unsigned integer." But Google is NOT God, just to be sure that much is clear.

I would have also discovered why this number might be more familiar to others, as many video games include variables that max out at 65,535.

65,535 is the experience limit for Dragon Quest, for example.

It is astounding to me to think someone plays the same video game long enough to rack up more than 65,000 experiences.

It is reassuring that this is consistent with a natural result of more than 65,000 actual views of this thread.

Not a software manipulation to pretend there is traffic at a dead website. Good!

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Seems like the hype has flat lined.

Call it the Dead Internet Theory.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Seems like the hype has flat lined.

Call it the Dead Internet Theory.

What has flatlined besides the hype is the participation of the core troll group at climate-debate.com

IBdaMann was posting ten times a day when I first became acquainted with him.

After Google stopped directing any fresh prey into the Define-your-terms-you-scientifically-illiterate-moron! ambush, he tapered way down. IBdaMann was down to ten posts a month.

But where is he now?

Not even a sporadic cameo.

A month now without any word from the senior troll at climate-debate.com

When the other biogeochemistry threads reach their maximum possible "Views" count of 65,535, it will no longer be possible to monitor any changes.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Seems like the hype has flat lined.

Call it the Dead Internet Theory.

What has flatlined besides the hype is the participation of the core troll group at climate-debate.com

IBdaMann was posting ten times a day when I first became acquainted with him.

After Google stopped directing any fresh prey into the Define-your-terms-you-scientifically-illiterate-moron! ambush, he tapered way down. IBdaMann was down to ten posts a month.

But where is he now?

Not even a sporadic cameo.

A month now without any word from the senior troll at climate-debate.com

When the other biogeochemistry threads reach their maximum possible "Views" count of 65,535, it will no longer be possible to monitor any changes.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry', Robert. Buzzword fallacy. Your whining does nothing.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Seems like the hype has flat lined.

Call it the Dead Internet Theory.

What has flatlined besides the hype is the participation of the core troll group at climate-debate.com

IBdaMann was posting ten times a day when I first became acquainted with him.

After Google stopped directing any fresh prey into the Define-your-terms-you-scientifically-illiterate-moron! ambush, he tapered way down. IBdaMann was down to ten posts a month.

But where is he now?

Not even a sporadic cameo.

A month now without any word from the senior troll at climate-debate.com

When the other biogeochemistry threads reach their maximum possible "Views" count of 65,535, it will no longer be possible to monitor any changes.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry', Robert. Buzzword fallacy. Your whining does nothing.

It is impressive how many things have been named after something that doesn't even exist.

"Biogeochemistry" is splashed all over the place as if it were a real word.

Universities have departments named after it.

The term appears in textbook titles and no less than a million different published, peer-reviewed scientific papers.

The scientific journal "Biogeochemistry" is very real, and has an EXCELLENT reputation.

You don't believe me?

Look up the journal "Biogeochemistry".

Yours truly, et al. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: A positive feedback? Biogeochemistry. volume 42, pages 189-220.

31 pages was the longest paper I ever got out on the topic. Apparently not TOO long to get noticed for about 500 citations. Is "citation" just a "buzzword"?

Perhaps in some alternative universe there is "no such thing" as biogeochemistry.

That's fine. They won't need any biogeochemistry in that universe as long as there is also "no such thing" as climate change.

In a buzzword-free universe, nothing bad can happen.

Don't worry. Be happy.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

For more than three weeks, this thread has remained stuck at 65,535 "views". Just a few months back, it picked up as many as 300 new "views" in a single day.

Shattering my illusions of a larger audience, now it looks like "views" are falsely manipulated in a manner similar to "Guests online", which sometimes claims there are 300 new viewers at any given moment.

It is implausible that a large group of new viewers suddenly stopped looking at this thread a few weeks ago.

Seems like the hype has flat lined.

Call it the Dead Internet Theory.

What has flatlined besides the hype is the participation of the core troll group at climate-debate.com

IBdaMann was posting ten times a day when I first became acquainted with him.

After Google stopped directing any fresh prey into the Define-your-terms-you-scientifically-illiterate-moron! ambush, he tapered way down. IBdaMann was down to ten posts a month.

But where is he now?

Not even a sporadic cameo.

A month now without any word from the senior troll at climate-debate.com

When the other biogeochemistry threads reach their maximum possible "Views" count of 65,535, it will no longer be possible to monitor any changes.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry', Robert. Buzzword fallacy. Your whining does nothing.

It is impressive how many things have been named after something that doesn't even exist.

"Biogeochemistry" is splashed all over the place as if it were a real word.

Universities have departments named after it.

The term appears in textbook titles and no less than a million different published, peer-reviewed scientific papers.

The scientific journal "Biogeochemistry" is very real, and has an EXCELLENT reputation.

You don't believe me?

Look up the journal "Biogeochemistry".

Yours truly, et al. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: A positive feedback? Biogeochemistry. volume 42, pages 189-220.

31 pages was the longest paper I ever got out on the topic. Apparently not TOO long to get noticed for about 500 citations. Is "citation" just a "buzzword"?

Perhaps in some alternative universe there is "no such thing" as biogeochemistry.

That's fine. They won't need any biogeochemistry in that universe as long as there is also "no such thing" as climate change.

In a buzzword-free universe, nothing bad can happen.

Don't worry. Be happy.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry', Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
We do not recognize the authority of your Royal Decree negating the existence of an established and recognized field of science.

Im a BM wrote:
ANYONE can easily verify that YES, there IS such a thing as "biogeochemistry".

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone with the most basic scientific research skills can learn why biogeochemistry is so relevant to discussion of climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe Into the Night is not a LIAR.

Maybe he is delusional enough to HONESTLY BELIEVE he is a "chemist".

sealover wrote:
May 2, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update
[quote]sealover wrote:
The following paper reviews the advances in our understanding of the role of geologically derived nitrogen and phosphorus in global nutrient cycles.

Mike Deas, Jeff Laird, Stacy Tanaka, and Randy A. Dahlgren. 2024. Geologically derived nitrogen and phosphorus as a source of riverine nutrients. Earth Critical Zone, 1 (2024) 100003

sealover wrote:
Randy Dahlgren is a genius and highly respected biogeochemist who I had the honor of working with for more than a decade. In 1995, I convinced Randy to let me go with my kids to the field and collect a bunch of rock samples, just in case they might turn out to be the source of nitrogen we were finding in the river water.

sealover wrote:

This new review paper cites that work, of course (Holloway et al., 1998, Contribution of bedrock nitrogen to high nitrate concentrations in streamwater. Nature volume 395, pages 785-788). Rush Limbaugh actually cited it on his show when it came out in 1998.

sealover wrote:

This new review also reveals how measurement of DISSOLVED ORGANIC NITROGEN has become so important to fully account for nitrogen fluxes and identify vehicles of transport. Of course, it cites the laboratory method that WE developed to analyze for dissolved organic nitrogen (Yu et al., 1994, Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of NO3-N, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, volume 25, pages 3161-3169)

sealover wrote:

In 1993 I talked Randy into letting Zengshou and I develop a faster method, because the Kjeldahl digest was so damn slow and cumbersome and dangerous.. We would just mimic the Dohrman analyzer with alkaline persulfate oxidation, only to determine organic NITROGEN rather than organic CARBON.

sealover wrote:

It is very gratifying to see this paper three decades later. Scientists get it now, and they DO make a point to measure organic nitrogen, in addition to the mineral forms (ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, N2, NOx, etc). In some rivers they had been missing more than half the nitrogen, because it was contained in dissolved organic compounds (amino acids, etc). It is gratifying to see that persulfate oxidation has become widely adopted as a faster, cheaper, safer, and more accurate way to measure organic nitrogen than the Kjeldahl digest. It finally got EPA approval, fifteen years ago I think, so it is a "reportable" method to use for environmental bureaucracy purposes. Scientists didn't wait for EPA approval to adopt it for research long before that.

sealover wrote:

Randy Dahlgren is retired now, too. He won just about every award they had to give before he did.

sealover wrote:

And I'll be getting back to this thread soon enough to update the "sequestration" topic. It keeps going forward, whether the merchants of doubt succeed at handicapping research funding or not. It doesn't cost much to study it, and it won't depend on Donald Trump's support.

sealover wrote:

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.

sealover wrote:

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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:

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.

sealover wrote:

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.

sealover wrote:

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.

Im a BM wrote:
May 2, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update
....

sealover wrote:
May 3, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

This paper came out three days ago. It cites my 1995 paper (myself, Zengshou Yu, and Randy) in Nature, "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.", volume 377, pages 227-229.

I haven't even read the abstract yet, but seeing the word "mycorrhization" in the title compels me to go ahead and post it just to define the coolest new "buzzword" I've seen in a while.

R. Angeles-Argaiz, et al. 2026. The dose makes the poison: Hormetic-like response of mycelial growth of Laccaria trichodermophora, mycorrhization, and Pinus patula development by soil extract amendments. Rhizosphere rhisph 2026 101331

sealover wrote:
I hope it allows me to come back and edit with more details.. I'm cited because one of the extract amendments tested was methanol-soluble phenolic materials and they needed to cite some theory behind why they were testing it. "Mycorrization" is the process by which mycorrhizal fungi colonize the roots of host plants in order to form symbiotic partnerships. MOST plants have at least one species of mycorrhizal fungi living in association with their roots.
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
May 3, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

This paper came out three days ago. It cites my 1995 paper (myself, Zengshou Yu, and Randy) in Nature, "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.", volume 377, pages 227-229.

I haven't even read the abstract yet, but seeing the word "mycorrhization" in the title compels me to go ahead and post it just to define the coolest new "buzzword" I've seen in a while.

R. Angeles-Argaiz, et al. 2026. The dose makes the poison: Hormetic-like response of mycelial growth of Laccaria trichodermophora, mycorrhization, and Pinus patula development by soil extract amendments. Rhizosphere rhisph 2026 101331

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Nitrogen is not a tree.
Random words. Ignoring non-English portion.

sealover wrote:
I hope it allows me to come back and edit with more details.. I'm cited because one of the extract amendments tested was methanol-soluble phenolic materials and they needed to cite some theory behind why they were testing it. "Mycorrization" is the process by which mycorrhizal fungi colonize the roots of host plants in order to form symbiotic partnerships. MOST plants have at least one species of mycorrhizal fungi living in association with their roots.
...deleted spam...

Phenolic is not a chemical. YARP

Im a BM wrote:
You display such mastery of chemistry in your highly-informative posts.

"Nitrogen is not a tree." "Phenolic is not a chemical." - Into the Night

Im a BM wrote:
Everyone who reads your shit is a little MORE STUPID now.

Everyone who wants to find information related to the thread topic has to troll past a bunch of YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) posts to get to it.

Im a BM wrote:
I still have NO IDEA what you think you are accomplishing, Into the Night.

Im a BM wrote:
It's NOT a chemical! Okay... and, therefore? WTF?

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Obviously, you understand chemistry on a whole different level than I do.

Im a BM wrote:
"Phenolic is not a chemical." In response to "methanol-soluble phenolic materials".

Shouldn't you say "Phenolic is not a material"?

Im a BM wrote:
The CHEMICALS in methanol-soluble phenolic materials are primarily polyphenols, which are many specific chemical forms of phenol, carboxylic acids. In this particular case, the polyphenols were condensed tannins, primarily proanthocyanidins and proanthodelphinidins. LOOK THEM UP before you presume there is "no such thing".

Im a BM wrote:
And they cited MY paper in Nature (1995) because we were the first to show how condensed tannins regulated nitrogen release from pine litter, enabling pine-mycorrhizal associations to short-circuit the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle (nitrogen is NOT a cycle!) and monopolize the limited nitrogen supply.

Im a BM wrote:
Some people actually CARE about biogeochemistry and environmental science.

Others just want to be disruptive hecklers for reasons hard to decipher.

Science is NOT blah blah blah, and blah blah blah is NOT a chemical.

sealover wrote:
[b]May 3, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
(deleted spam)

Hey, it's YOU that claimed 'phenolic' is some kind of chemical. It is YOU that claimed nitrogen is some kind of tree. You can't blame me for your word games.

(deleted spam)

Redefinition fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
(deleted spam)

Just pointing out your many errors and word games. Just pointing out how you deny theories of science and which ones.

Im a BM wrote:
(deleted spam)

Lie. Synthesis. You deny chemistry, Robert.

(deleted spam)

Phenolic is not a chemical.

(deleted spam)

Phenolic is not a chemical.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.
Phenol is not a chemical.
Carboxylic is not a chemical or an acid.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Proanthocyanidins is not a chemical.
Proanthodelphinidins is not a chemical.

(deleted spam)

So a rag magazine cited your paper. Big hairy deal.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Nitrogen is not a tree.
Nitrogen is not a rock.
Nitrogen is not a cycle.
Nitrogen is most of the atmosphere. It is not really limited.
Nitrogen is not a business.

(deleted spam)

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. There is no such thing as 'environmental science'. Magick Words.

Religion is not science.
Buzzwords are not science.

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

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You display such mastery of chemistry in your highly-informative posts.

"Nitrogen is not a tree." "Phenolic is not a chemical." - Into the Night

Hey, it's YOU that claimed 'phenolic' is some kind of chemical. It is YOU that claimed nitrogen is some kind of tree. You can't blame me for your word games.

Im a BM wrote:
Everyone who reads your shit is a little MORE STUPID now.

Everyone who wants to find information related to the thread topic has to troll past a bunch of YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) posts to get to it.

Redefinition fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
I still have NO IDEA what you think you are accomplishing, Into the Night.

Just pointing out your many errors and word games. Just pointing out how you deny theories of science and which ones.

Im a BM wrote:
It's NOT a chemical! Okay... and, therefore? WTF?

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Obviously, you understand chemistry on a whole different level than I do.

Lie. Synthesis. You deny chemistry, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
"Phenolic is not a chemical." In response to "methanol-soluble phenolic materials".

Shouldn't you say "Phenolic is not a material"?

Phenolic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The CHEMICALS in methanol-soluble phenolic materials are primarily polyphenols, which are many specific chemical forms of phenol, carboxylic acids. In this particular case, the polyphenols were condensed tannins, primarily proanthocyanidins and proanthodelphinidins. LOOK THEM UP before you presume there is "no such thing".

Phenolic is not a chemical.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.
Phenol is not a chemical.
Carboxylic is not a chemical or an acid.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Proanthocyanidins is not a chemical.
Proanthodelphinidins is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
And they cited MY paper in Nature (1995) because we were the first to show how condensed tannins regulated nitrogen release from pine litter, enabling pine-mycorrhizal associations to short-circuit the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle (nitrogen is NOT a cycle!) and monopolize the limited nitrogen supply.

So a rag magazine cited your paper. Big hairy deal.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Nitrogen is not a tree.
Nitrogen is not a rock.
Nitrogen is not a cycle.
Nitrogen is most of the atmosphere. It is not really limited.
Nitrogen is not a business.

Im a BM wrote:
Some people actually CARE about biogeochemistry and environmental science.

Others just want to be disruptive hecklers for reasons hard to decipher.

Science is NOT blah blah blah, and blah blah blah is NOT a chemical.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. There is no such thing as 'environmental science'. Magick Words.

Religion is not science.
Buzzwords are not science.

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

Im a BM wrote:
"Phenol is not a chemical." - Into the Night

Oh, our great God that is GOOGLE, with praise, "Is phenol a chemical?"

Google is good. Google gives us all we need. Google AI (upper left) tells us:

"Yes, phenol (also known as carbolic acid, C6H5OH) is a manufactured and natural aromatic industrial chemical. It is a colorless-to-white solid in pure form, frequently used to produce phenolic resins, nylon, plastics... blah blah blah"

[b]Im a BM wrote:
Go and learn some CHEMISTRY, Into the Night. You DENY chemistry!

Im a BM wrote:
Carbolic acid is another name for the CHEMICAL they also call "phenol".

Im a BM wrote:
You should remember it, because you used to claim that carbon dioxide would form CARBOLIC ACID, maybe about 1% of it, when CO2 dissolved in water.

Im a BM wrote:
Phenol IS a chemical. But it wouldn't prove shit to say "phenol is not a chemical" even if it were NOT, when "phenol" is used correctly in a context where only an IDIOT RETARD MORON SCIENCE DENIER fraudulent "chemist" could possibly read it to mean "Phenol IS a chemical".

Im a BM wrote:
You learn something new every day, don't you? for example:

"Nitrogen is not a tree." GOSH! Who knew?

Im a BM wrote:
"Nitrogen is not a rock." Really? Not a tree OR a rock? Huh...

Im a BM wrote:
"Nitrogen is not a business." Oh, shit. And I got conned into investing...

Well, we've got ourselves a NITROGEN expert.

Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet Google has an antichrist nitrogen expert.

Im a BM wrote:
See? I always DOX myself because: Google one name and one term

Robert R. Northup, nitrogen cycle

"Robert R. Northup's research demonstrates that polyphenols in leaf litter, particularly in pine forests, act as a crucial control mechanism in the nitrogen cycle. By regulating the breakdown of organic matter, these compounds prevent nitrogen from converting into mineral forms, reducing ecosystem nitrogen losses, and aiding in nutrient retention on acidic soils."

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, Google is good.

"I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you, Robert." Into the Night

It bugs the hell out of me that I did all the work and you got the recognition.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

Im a BM wrote:
May 3, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

...deleted irrelevance...
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.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
May 3, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

...deleted irrelevance...
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.

I'm done with your stupid distractions. Irrelevance fallacy.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

You are still trying to ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Climate cannot change.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes it can! Climate CAN change. Climate DOES change.

Im a BM wrote:
And that's just the reality of natural history for as long as the Earth has had a sea and atmosphere. That's before asking if human activity is even theoretically capable of having any impact on HOW climate changes.

Im a BM wrote:
No, you can't get past square one in this climate "debate".

Im a BM wrote:
Because climate CANNOT change...

Im a BM wrote:
Because no unambiguous definition for "climate change" exists that does not violate some college drop-out's BIZARRE interpretation of the "laws of thermodynamics".

Im a BM wrote:
Only a scientifically illiterate moron would imagine that climate CAN change.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
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.

Buzzword fallacies. You're going to have to use English to get anywhere here.

sealover wrote:
The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world.

Tell that to a tea farmer.

sealover wrote:
To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots.

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

sealover wrote:
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.

Guess you decided to have a cup of tea while you make up strings of useless buzzwords to say nothing.

Im a BM wrote:
So, does ANYONE know anything about polyphenols?
...deleted remaining irrelevance, buzzwords, and spam...