Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

sealover wrote:
May 10, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

sealover wrote:
3 days ago THIS paper came out, citing my 1995 pub in Nature, "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter". Someone DOES know something about polyphenols, beyond use of pine litter for cat litter.

sealover wrote:

A. Paul, et al. 2026. The Nitrobacter-denitrifiers ratio indicates nitrate export risk to streams in temperate forest catchments. Ecological Indicators Volume 187 June 2026 114938

sealover wrote:
Nitrobacter are aerobic bacteria which use oxygen as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize NITRITE, NO2-, into NITRATE, NO3-. This is the second step in "nitrification". Nitrosomonas oxidize AMMONIUM, NH4+, into nitrite.

sealover wrote:
The "risk to streams in temperate forest catchments" was identified in the 1980s as "nitrogen saturation" became the alarmist warning among ecologists. The nitric acid in "acid rain" had increased dramatically, particularly due to automobile emissions. Nitrate was showing up in stream waters that never had it before in previous decades of measurement.

sealover wrote:
By the early 2000s, the problem began to magically disappear. Nitrate reducing bacteria colonized subsurface flow paths to exploit the new availability of nitrate in groundwater flows. "Denitrifiers" are bacteria which use nitrate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. They transform nitrate, NO3-, into nitrogen gas, N2.

sealover wrote:
I will actually READ the paper before further comment. The abstract concerns me that they may have IGNORED the bacteria that perform Dissimilatory Reduction of Nitrate to Ammonium (DRNA). Like denitrifiers, they use nitrate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon, producing carbonate ion as the oxidized organic carbon waste product. Unlike denitrfiers, they retain nitrogen in the soil/water as ammonium, rather than nitrogen escaping to the atmosphere as nitrogen gas, N2.

sealover wrote:
Why, exactly, did they cite ME? I'll find out and update ALL the biogeochemistry references. It is not at all clear that organic nitrogen was taken into consideration. DRNA appears to have been overlooked as a major pathway of nitrate removal from groundwater. The abstract alone gives me serious doubt about the predictive value of the "Nitrobacter-denitrifiers" ratio.
'They' is you.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Nitrogen is not organic.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Nitrobacter-denitrifiers is not a word.
Buzzwords are not a ratio.
[quote]sealover wrote:
In any case, the good news is that far fewer streams than 30 years ago are seen as a "risk" for nitrogen export as nitrate. Nitrogen "saturation" created a new niche for nitrate-reducing bacteria to colonize subsurface flow paths and exploit the organic carbon despite the low oxygen conditions.

sealover wrote:
Perhaps the greater significance of the "Nitrobacter-denitrifiers" ratio will be revealed when we also quantify how much nitrate is being consumed by DNRA, to compare with the "Nitrobacter-DRNA" ratio in those same ground water flows.

sealover wrote:
One clue from the abstract that may prove key to solving the puzzle:
"The Nitrobacter-to-denitrifiers ratio was consistently higher in soils collected at the bottom of the slope... than for mid slope soils"

sealover wrote:
Nitrate reducing bacteria of one kind or another came crawling uphill in order to exploit the newly available oxidant (terminal electron acceptor) coming down with the rain as nitric acid. Perhaps denitrifiers are just FASTER than DRNA bacteria for working their way uphill in subsurface flow paths. Or visa versa. Perhaps the first wave of nitrate reducers were adapted, as weeds, for quick colonization of an open niche. They are now being out competed as a second wave of nitrate reducing bacteria move uphill more slowly.

sealover wrote:
When I finally read the paper, apparently it includes discussion of "N2O emissions", and THAT might be why they cited MY paper. Or maybe it is just because my paper alerted them to be sure to measure dissolved organic N.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
spam deleted

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

[b]sealover wrote:
spam deleted

Polyphenol is not a chemical.
Nitrogen is not a tree.

sealover wrote:

spam deleted

Nitrate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
spam deleted

There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor.
Nitrite is not a chemical.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Nitrosomonas is not a chemical
Ammonium is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
spam deleted

Nitrogen is not a 'saturation'.
Rain is naturally acidic.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
You can't measure nitrate, since it is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
spam deleted

Nitrate is not a chemical.
Nitrate is not water.
Denitrifiers is not a word.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not organic.

sealover wrote:spam deleted

Dissimilatory is not a word.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
Denitrifiers is not a word.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not organic.
Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:spam deleted
'They' is you.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Nitrogen is not organic.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Nitrobacter-denitrifiers is not a word.
Buzzwords are not a ratio.
[quote]sealover wrote:spam deleted

Nitrogen is not a stream.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Bacteria is not a flow.
Carbon is not organic.

sealover wrote:spam deleted

Nitrobacter-denitrifiers is not a word.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
DNRA is not a chemical.
Water is not a buzzword.
Water is not bacteria.

sealover wrote:spam deleted

Nitrobacter-to-denitrifiers is not a word.
Buzzwords are not a ratio.
Buzzwords are not a slope.

sealover wrote:deleted spam

Nitrate is not a chemical.
Bacteria doesn't crawl.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Rain is naturally acidic.
Denitrifiers is not a word.
DRNA is meaningless.
Bacteria is not a flow.
Nitrate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:spam deleted

'They' is you.
Nitrogen is not organic.


You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate.
You are still ignoring the 1st law and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Im a BM wrote:
Deleting all of sealover's irrelevant spam allows Into the Night's comments to stand alone as a masterful science lesson.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
Dissimilitory reduction of nitrate to ammonium (DRNA) is also called Dissimilitory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA). Same thing, different name. Either name is correct for when certain bacteria use nitrate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.

Im a BM wrote:
Historically, denitrification has gotten most if not all the attention. Denitrification is when bacteria use nitrate as terminal electron acceptor under low oxygen conditions to oxidize organic carbon, but NITROGEN GAS, N2, is the reduced nitrogen product. Now that ecologists are finally paying attention and looking for it, they are finding DRNA or DNRA happening all over the place where it was previously assumed that denitrification was the only nitrate reduction game in town.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Deleting all of sealover's irrelevant spam allows Into the Night's comments to stand alone as a masterful science lesson.

YOU are sealover, liar. It is your other sock. You are the only one with socks on this forum.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
Dissimilitory reduction of nitrate to ammonium (DRNA) is also called Dissimilitory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA). Same thing, different name. Either name is correct for when certain bacteria use nitrate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.

Whining gets you nowhere mighty fast.
Dissimiltory is not a word.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
DRNA is not a chemical.
Dissimilitory nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Historically, denitrification has gotten most if not all the attention. Denitrification is when bacteria use nitrate as terminal electron acceptor under low oxygen conditions to oxidize organic carbon, but NITROGEN GAS, N2, is the reduced nitrogen product. Now that ecologists are finally paying attention and looking for it, they are finding DRNA or DNRA happening all over the place where it was previously assumed that denitrification was the only nitrate reduction game in town.

Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor.
Carbon is not organic.
Nitrogen does not reduce to nitrogen.
DRNA is not a chemical.

You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate.
You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Deleting all of sealover's irrelevant spam allows Into the Night's comments to stand alone as a masterful science lesson.

YOU are sealover, liar. It is your other sock. You are the only one with socks on this forum.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
Dissimilitory reduction of nitrate to ammonium (DRNA) is also called Dissimilitory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA). Same thing, different name. Either name is correct for when certain bacteria use nitrate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.

Whining gets you nowhere mighty fast.
Dissimiltory is not a word.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
DRNA is not a chemical.
Dissimilitory nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Historically, denitrification has gotten most if not all the attention. Denitrification is when bacteria use nitrate as terminal electron acceptor under low oxygen conditions to oxidize organic carbon, but NITROGEN GAS, N2, is the reduced nitrogen product. Now that ecologists are finally paying attention and looking for it, they are finding DRNA or DNRA happening all over the place where it was previously assumed that denitrification was the only nitrate reduction game in town.

Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor.
Carbon is not organic.
Nitrogen does not reduce to nitrogen.
DRNA is not a chemical.

You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate.
You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

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

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann introduced a new term into the discussion, for the first time:

"Biogeochemical feedbacks". Couldn't get him to DEFINE his TERMS, so I looked it up on Google. Came across THIS one, and was surprised to see that they cited MY discovery in this area. It was 13 years ago, and I wasn't paying as much attention to which new papers were citing me as I do today.

"Biogeochemical plant-soil microbe feedback in response to climate warming" By Luca Bragazza, et al, 2013, in Nature Climate Change, volume 3 pages 273-
IBdaMann might be surprised to learn that "biogeochemical feedbacks" was a new one on me. The concept was clear enough, but I had never heard anyone say it or remembered seeing anyone write it. I stand corrected!

Yes, "biogeochemical feedbacks" is a "thing"!
...deleted spam...

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann introduced a new term into the discussion, for the first time:

"Biogeochemical feedbags".

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann introduced a new term into the discussion, for the first time:

"Biogeochemical feedbags".

sealover wrote:
May 21, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

sealover wrote:
Catena is a highly prestigious soil science journal.

sealover wrote:
This new paper in Catena cites our 1998 paper in Biogeochemistry, "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in Northern California's pygmy forest: a positive feedback?" (Biogeochemistry, 1998, volume 41, pages 189-220)

sealover wrote:
I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

sealover wrote:
The following paper reviews the advances in our understanding of the role of geologically derived nitrogen and phosphorus in global nutrient cycles.

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 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.
...deleted remaining irrelevance...

sealover wrote:
May 21, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

Dr. Randy A. Dahlgren is retired, but he got out TWO papers out THIS MONTH!

He got so many awards and honors while he was in the game, and he still authors new papers... And he cites the papers he and I authored together. Not about tooting our own horn so much as providing the only reference available for the first ones to do it.

came out May 17, 2026. Z Wang, M Shibata, H Lyu, Randy A. Dahlgren, Y Kuzyakov, T Watanabe, C Zaccone, C Chisambi, and S Funakawa. Depth effects of organic matter stabilization in temperate acidic forest soils. Catena, Volume 271, Article 110248.

Catena is a highly prestigious soil science journal. Note that the title specifies "acidic forest soils" because plant-soil-interactions in low pH soils was our specialty. For example, our paper in Plant and Soil, 1995, "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: A new interpretation" (Plant & Soil, 1995, volume 171, pages 255-262).

This new paper in Catena cites our 1998 paper in Biogeochemistry, "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in Northern California's pygmy forest: a positive feedback?" (Biogeochemistry, 1998, volume 41, pages 189-220)

I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

In fact, I got to work alongside the genius for about a decade.

Good times! And he's still putting out good papers...

------------------------------------------------------
May 2, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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:
]Into the Night wrote:.

.

.


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.

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

Im a BM wrote: Lignin is a complex polymer comprised primarily of aromatic phenols.

Im a BM wrote:Ecologists have long been interested in what lignin does when it gets into the soil ...

Im a BM wrote:Ecologists also long believed ...

Im a BM wrote: My (1995) paper in Nature was the first to show that lignin wasn't necessarily the most important regulator to influence nitrogen cycling.

Im a BM wrote: 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.

Im a BM wrote:1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions... Biogeochemistry. Volume 42 pages 189-220.

Im a BM wrote:But one must know what lignin IS and how to extract it to make such discovery.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Lignin is a complex polymer comprised primarily of aromatic phenols.

Nobody really knows what lignin is. It is certainly not a single polymer. Its structure varies by species and it is more akin to a network with seemingly random elements. Ecologists repeatedly refer to lignin as "ambiguous."

To be fair, if you can make a claim about lignin's molecular structure, so can Into the Night. The bottom line is that he can point out that lignin doesn't fall neatly into any category that you assert, just as you complain that lignin doesn't fall neatly into the carbohydrate category in which he is placing it.

Im a BM wrote:Ecologists have long been interested in what lignin does when it gets into the soil ...

... but they have all been thwarted because they can't even determine the molecular structure with which they are dealing.

Im a BM wrote:Ecologists also long believed ...

Ecological folk tales.

Im a BM wrote: My (1995) paper in Nature was the first to show that lignin wasn't necessarily the most important regulator to influence nitrogen cycling.

Did you really use the word "regulator"? Did you really assert that the "regulator" merely "influenced" the nitrogen cycling?

Im a BM wrote: 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.

What have you contributed to defining the structure of lignin?

Im a BM wrote:1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions... Biogeochemistry. Volume 42 pages 189-220.

My issue is this:
*An ecologist will say that lignin is a regulator of plant litter decomposition
*I will ask how he knows this since the structure of lignin is not known.
*The ecologist will say that structure does not need to be known to observe the functional behavior of lignin
*I will ask how he knows that the lignin is doing the regulating if he doesn't know the structure of lignin; something else could be doing the regulating
*The ecologist will say that he concludes that the lignin is doing the regulating because that is what remains when everything else has decomposed.
*I remind the ecologist that being the slowest thing to decompose does not make anything a regulator of a decomposition, e.g. human skeletons don't regulate human decomposition, plastic does not regulate decomposition of landfills, etc.
*The ecologist responds that lignin is established to be the decomposition regulator based on the way it interacts chemically with the rest of the litter.
*I remind the ecologist that he doesn't know how the lignin interacts with the litter because he doesn't know the structure of lignin, and something else might be doing the regulating.

Robert, do you have any insight to add to this "coming full circle"?

Im a BM wrote:But one must know what lignin IS and how to extract it to make such discovery.

... and you don't know what lignin is. Nobody does.

Im a BM wrote: You make MANY authoritative, contrarian assertions.

Im a BM wrote:Can you cite ONE "white paper" or "textbook" that AGREES with you?

Im a BM wrote: Even just ONE contrarian assertion you make, can you cite just ONE "white paper" or "textbook" that agrees with ANYTHING you say?

Im a BM wrote: I could tell you which papers agree with MY assertions, including my own original discoveries.

Im a BM wrote: The more you try to belittle it, the more I wonder what makes YOU believe you have any credibility whatsover calling yourself some kind of "scientist".

Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann, it's hilarious to see you claim you taught ME anything about anything ...

Into the Night wrote:
You summed it up quite well, IBDaMann. :thumbsup:

Im a BM wrote: You DO have the option to provide a reference to a credible source,

Im a BM wrote: You also have the option to STOP trolling everything I post, as if you had some useful knowledge to contribute to any discussion.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: You DO have the option to provide a reference to a credible source,

Scientists don't consider any "source" to be credible or even relevant. Scientists cite science. Isn't it funny how that works?

Im a BM wrote: You also have the option to STOP trolling everything I post, as if you had some useful knowledge to contribute to any discussion.

You have the option to STOP spamming every thread.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote: You DO have the option to provide a reference to a credible source,

Scientists don't consider any "source" to be credible or even relevant. Scientists cite science. Isn't it funny how that works?

Im a BM wrote: You also have the option to STOP trolling everything I post, as if you had some useful knowledge to contribute to any discussion.

You have the option to STOP spamming every thread.

sealover wrote:

Preston, C.M. 2001. Carbon-13 solid-state NMR of soil organic matter: Using the technique effectively. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, SI 81: 255-270

Like "tannin", "lignin" is not a single chemical with a single structure and formula. These two classes of polyphenols are very similar, and very difficult to separate from each other during extraction procedures.

sealover wrote:

Dr. Preston's incredibly important contribution with NMR was to show that much of what was operationally-defined as "lignin" due to its pH-solubility characteristics was actually tannin. This is in the context of soil organic matter.

sealover wrote:

The important distinction between tannin and lignin is that tannin has carboxylic groups in addition to phenolic groups. NMR can sort this out, where pH-based extractions cannot.

What lignins and tannins have in common is that they are polymers of aromatic alcohols, also known as phenols.

sealover wrote:
There is no single structure or formula for lignin or tannin. There are literally hundreds of different specific chemicals in these classes of organic compounds.

What we can say with certainty about lignin chemistry is that it is NOT a carbohydrate, NOT a hydrocarbon, and NOT anything other than a polyphenol comprised of aromatic alcohol subunits, benzene rings with phenolic hydroxyl groups. Unlike tannin, lignin contains no carboxylic groups on any of those benzene rings.

sealover wrote:
"Lignin-cellulose complex" is one of those meaningless buzzwords you can look up to see the challenge for wood pulping to make paper. Lignin can form strong bonds to cellulose, and separating them is not easy. It takes a strong reducing agent such as sodium sulfide to break those bonds.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote: You DO have the option to provide a reference to a credible source,

Scientists don't consider any "source" to be credible or even relevant. Scientists cite science. Isn't it funny how that works?

Im a BM wrote: You also have the option to STOP trolling everything I post, as if you had some useful knowledge to contribute to any discussion.

You have the option to STOP spamming every thread.

This excellent paper by Caroline Preston cites my work, but more importantly it shows how nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) can be used to characterize the structure of lignins and tannins in order to distinguish what the heck is contained in soil organic matter.

sealover wrote:

Preston, C.M. 2001. Carbon-13 solid-state NMR of soil organic matter: Using the technique effectively. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, SI 81: 255-270

Like "tannin", "lignin" is not a single chemical with a single structure and formula. These two classes of polyphenols are very similar, and very difficult to separate from each other during extraction procedures.

Science is not a paper.
Science is not a machine.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:

Dr. Preston's incredibly important contribution with NMR was to show that much of what was operationally-defined as "lignin" due to its pH-solubility characteristics was actually tannin. This is in the context of soil organic matter.

Science is not a machine.
Lignin is not pH.
Tannin is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:

The important distinction between tannin and lignin is that tannin has carboxylic groups in addition to phenolic groups. NMR can sort this out, where pH-based extractions cannot.

What lignins and tannins have in common is that they are polymers of aromatic alcohols, also known as phenols.

Phenol is not a chemical.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Science is not a machine.
Carboxylic is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
There is no single structure or formula for lignin or tannin. There are literally hundreds of different specific chemicals in these classes of organic compounds.

What we can say with certainty about lignin chemistry is that it is NOT a carbohydrate, NOT a hydrocarbon, and NOT anything other than a polyphenol comprised of aromatic alcohol subunits, benzene rings with phenolic hydroxyl groups. Unlike tannin, lignin contains no carboxylic groups on any of those benzene rings.

Lignin is not chemistry.
Lignin is a carbohydrate.
Lignin is not a hydrocarbon.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.
Alcohol is not a 'subunit'.
Phenolic hydroxyl is not a chemical.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Lignin contains benzene rings.

sealover wrote:
"Lignin-cellulose complex" is one of those meaningless buzzwords you can look up to see the challenge for wood pulping to make paper. Lignin can form strong bonds to cellulose, and separating them is not easy. It takes a strong reducing agent such as sodium sulfide to break those bonds.

You made up the buzzword.
Sodium sulfide is not used in pulp mills.
Separating the lignin->cellulose bond is easy. It is done on an industrial scale in every pulp mill.

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

Actually, phenol IS a chemical also known as "carbolic acid".

But I need AI to substitute for my brain, so I surrender to GOOGLE
...deleted AI slop and spamming...
]

sealover wrote:
May 21, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

sealover wrote:
Catena is a highly prestigious soil science journal. Note that the title specifies "acidic forest soils" because plant-soil-interactions in low pH soils was our specialty. For example, our paper in Plant and Soil, 1995, "Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient: A new interpretation" (Plant & Soil, 1995, volume 171, pages 255-262).

sealover wrote:
This new paper in Catena cites our 1998 paper in Biogeochemistry, "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in Northern California's pygmy forest: a positive feedback?" (Biogeochemistry, 1998, volume 41, pages 189-220)

sealover wrote:
I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

...deleted remaining spam...

sealover wrote:
Dr. Randy A. Dahlgren is retired, but he got out TWO papers out THIS MONTH!

sealover wrote:He got so many awards and honors ...

sealover wrote:I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Dr. Randy A. Dahlgren is retired, but he got out TWO papers out THIS MONTH!

Dr. Randy Dahlgren is a noted soil specialist.

sealover wrote:He got so many awards and honors ...

... from other members of the Church of BiogeoIt'sAChemical. My understanding is that Dahlgren is a competent ecologist and doesn't need any religious titles to give him unearned credibility.

sealover wrote:I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

My understanding is that "BioGeoChemical" is equivalent to "Deacon" or "Clergyman."

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.

Patricio 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.

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.

Really fascinating synthesis--the tannin-mycorrhizal loop is something I hadn't thought about as a unified system before. The idea that plants on nutrient-poor soils essentially "route around" the standard nitrogen cycle by keeping N in organic form the whole time, and that mycorrhizal fungi are the key that unlocks it without triggering the nitrification pathway--that's an elegant picture.

A few things I'm turning over:

The white sand rainforest example is almost counterintuitive at first--you'd expect warm, wet, well-drained conditions to chew through litter fast, but the tannin load flips that completely. Is that thick litter layer purely a function of tannin-mediated inhibition, or is it a feedback loop where the severe nutrient deficiency and low pH of the parent material have already filtered out the microbial communities capable of aggressive decomposition? I'm wondering how separable those variables actually are in practice.

On the cropping system side--when you mention facilitating crop-mycorrhizal associations, how realistic is that at scale given that most high-yield elite cultivars have been selected under saturating fertilizer regimes that suppress mycorrhizal dependency? If we are talking about arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) for typical row crops, is there breeding work being done to recover that functional trait, or is inoculation and soil management the more practical near-term path?

And the compost angle is interesting to me as maybe the lowest-friction entry point--altering the decomposition kinetics by complexing labile proteins before they can volatilize or leach. Are there scalable, high-tannin feedstocks available to producers that work well for this, or does sourcing create a major bottleneck compared to standard high-carbon amendments like straw or wood chips?
Thanks for laying this out--I learn a lot from posts like this.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Dr. Randy A. Dahlgren is retired, but he got out TWO papers out THIS MONTH!

Dr. Randy Dahlgren is a noted soil specialist.

sealover wrote:He got so many awards and honors ...

... from other members of the Church of BiogeoIt'sAChemical. My understanding is that Dahlgren is a competent ecologist and doesn't need any religious titles to give him unearned credibility.

sealover wrote:I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

My understanding is that "BioGeoChemical" is equivalent to "Deacon" or "Clergyman."

Is "soil specialist" the proper title? I've never heard ANY scientist introduced as a "soil specialist", and I know a LOT of soil scientists. I've been at events with hundreds of others with scientific specialization related to soil, but if anyone ever called himself or anyone else a "soil specialist", I must have missed it.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Dr. Randy A. Dahlgren is retired, but he got out TWO papers out THIS MONTH!

Dr. Randy Dahlgren is a noted soil specialist.

sealover wrote:He got so many awards and honors ...

... from other members of the Church of BiogeoIt'sAChemical. My understanding is that Dahlgren is a competent ecologist and doesn't need any religious titles to give him unearned credibility.

sealover wrote:I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

My understanding is that "BioGeoChemical" is equivalent to "Deacon" or "Clergyman."

Is "soil specialist" the proper title? I've never heard ANY scientist introduced as a "soil specialist", and I know a LOT of soil scientists. I've been at events with hundreds of others with scientific specialization related to soil, but if anyone ever called himself or anyone else a "soil specialist", I must have missed it.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Patricio wrote:
Really fascinating synthesis

Patricio wrote:
--the tannin-mycorrhizal loop is something I hadn't thought about as a unified system before. The idea that plants on nutrient-poor soils essentially "route around" the standard nitrogen cycle by keeping N in organic form the whole time, and that mycorrhizal fungi are the key that unlocks it without triggering the nitrification pathway--that's an elegant picture.
[quote]Patricio wrote:

A few things I'm turning over:

The white sand rainforest example is almost counterintuitive at first--you'd expect warm, wet, well-drained conditions to chew through litter fast, but the tannin load flips that completely. Is that thick litter layer purely a function of tannin-mediated inhibition, or is it a feedback loop where the severe nutrient deficiency and low pH of the parent material have already filtered out the microbial communities capable of aggressive decomposition? I'm wondering how separable those variables actually are in practice.
[quote]Patricio wrote:
On the cropping system side--when you mention facilitating crop-mycorrhizal associations, how realistic is that at scale given that most high-yield elite cultivars have been selected under saturating fertilizer regimes that suppress mycorrhizal dependency? If we are talking about arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) for typical row crops, is there breeding work being done to recover that functional trait, or is inoculation and soil management the more practical near-term path?

And the compost angle is interesting to me as maybe the lowest-friction entry point--altering the decomposition kinetics by complexing labile proteins before they can volatilize or leach. Are there scalable, high-tannin feedstocks available to producers that work well for this, or does sourcing create a major bottleneck compared to standard high-carbon amendments like straw or wood chips?
Thanks for laying this out--I learn a lot from posts like this.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Dr. Randy A. Dahlgren is retired, but he got out TWO papers out THIS MONTH!

Dr. Randy Dahlgren is a noted soil specialist.

sealover wrote:He got so many awards and honors ...

... from other members of the Church of BiogeoIt'sAChemical. My understanding is that Dahlgren is a competent ecologist and doesn't need any religious titles to give him unearned credibility.

sealover wrote:I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

My understanding is that "BioGeoChemical" is equivalent to "Deacon" or "Clergyman."

Is "soil specialist" the proper title? I've never heard ANY scientist introduced as a "soil specialist", and I know a LOT of soil scientists. I've been at events with hundreds of others with scientific specialization related to soil, but if anyone ever called himself or anyone else a "soil specialist", I must have missed it.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Don't worry! I do not deny my own posts. I never have and never will.

You are welcome to show me an actual example of where I did such a thing.

You would need to pull up the actual POST where MY WORDS made some claim that I later "denied". That should be EASY, right?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Dr. Randy A. Dahlgren is retired, but he got out TWO papers out THIS MONTH!

Dr. Randy Dahlgren is a noted soil specialist.

sealover wrote:He got so many awards and honors ...

... from other members of the Church of BiogeoIt'sAChemical. My understanding is that Dahlgren is a competent ecologist and doesn't need any religious titles to give him unearned credibility.

sealover wrote:I love being able to brag about the fact that I actually know the biogeochemist Randy Dahlgren.

My understanding is that "BioGeoChemical" is equivalent to "Deacon" or "Clergyman."

Is "soil specialist" the proper title? I've never heard ANY scientist introduced as a "soil specialist", and I know a LOT of soil scientists. I've been at events with hundreds of others with scientific specialization related to soil, but if anyone ever called himself or anyone else a "soil specialist", I must have missed it.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Don't worry! I do not deny my own posts. I never have and never will.

You are welcome to show me an actual example of where I did such a thing.

You would need to pull up the actual POST where MY WORDS made some claim that I later "denied". That should be EASY, right?

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Im a BM wrote: Is "soil specialist" the proper title?

Im a BM wrote: I've never heard ANY scientist introduced as a "soil specialist",

Im a BM wrote: I've been at events with hundreds of others with scientific specialization related to soil, but if anyone ever called himself or anyone else a "soil specialist", I must have missed it.

Im a BM wrote:Randy performed and published more water quality investigations than soil specialization studies.

Im a BM wrote: In terms of man hours performed, more of Randy's career was as a "water specialist".

Im a BM wrote: He taught me all about evaporation.

Im a BM wrote: On the other hand, "biogeochemist" is the title I most frequently heard Randy use to characterize his clerical position within the church, or that others used to address him within the church.

Im a BM wrote:You'd be surprised how many religious nutcases BELIEVE in biogeochemistry.

Im a BM wrote:They actually believe it is thettled thienth.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Is "soil specialist" the proper title?

Yes. I don't recognize the clerical status of "High Priest Biogeochemical" or whatever your church calls him.

Im a BM wrote: I've never heard ANY scientist introduced as a "soil specialist",

... nor have I ever heard of any soil specialist introduced as "scientist."

Im a BM wrote: I've been at events with hundreds of others with scientific specialization related to soil, but if anyone ever called himself or anyone else a "soil specialist", I must have missed it.

I can imagine you missing the obvious on a daily basis.

Im a BM wrote:Randy performed and published more water quality investigations than soil specialization studies.

There you go, preaching about how sheer quantity of writing makes someone a deity, and then one post later, you lament how sheer quantity of writing makes Into the Night a demon.

Sheer quantity of writing is meaningless and you refer to it whenever you have no other point of substance to discuss in your need to create more meaningless quantity of writing.

Im a BM wrote: In terms of man hours performed, more of Randy's career was as a "water specialist".

Sheer quantity of writing ranks higher than quantity of manhours performed.

Im a BM wrote: He taught me all about evaporation.

Are you saying that even Dahlgren tried to teach you about evaporation. What do you think your problem is in learning the topic?

Im a BM wrote: On the other hand, "biogeochemist" is the title I most frequently heard Randy use to characterize his clerical position within the church, or that others used to address him within the church.

Im a BM wrote:You'd be surprised how many religious nutcases BELIEVE in biogeochemistry.

Nope. I am not surprised. None of them ever present any science either.

Im a BM wrote:They actually believe it is thettled thienth.