Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as 'carbon sequestration'.

Patricio wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as 'carbon sequestration'.

Patricio wrote

No? A Google Scholar search on those keywords (adding soil, since that is the topic), yeilds:

Carbon sequestration in soil
R Lal, W Negassa, K Lorenz - Current Opinion in Environmental ..., 2015 - Elsevier
... Soil carbon (C) sequestration implies transferring of atmospheric CO 2 into soil of a land
unit through its plants. Co-benefits of soil C sequestration include: advancing food and ...
Save Cite Cited by 767 Related articles All 15 versions
[PDF] researchgate.net
Carbon sequestration in soils
JP Bruce, M Frome, E Haites, H Janzen... - Journal of soil and ..., 1999 - Taylor & Francis
... T potential for carbon sequestration in the soil as a means of reducing carbon dioxide (CO,) ...
, (c) the methods available for estimating carbon sequestration on a farm or regional level, (d...
Save Cite Cited by 746 Related articles All 10 versions
[PDF] researchgate.net
Carbon sequestration in soils
WH Schlesinger - Science, 1999 - science.org
... soil organic matter (SOM) adds to soil fertility, water retention, and crop production. Recently,
many soil scientists have suggested that the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide ...
Save Cite Cited by 762 Related articles All 12 versions
Mechanisms of carbon sequestration in soil aggregates
H Blanco-Canqui, R Lal - Critical reviews in plant sciences, 2004 - Taylor & Francis
... SOC sequestration. The objectives of this article are to: (1) describe the importance of ...
and soil functions on SOC sequestration, (2) review the mechanisms of SOC sequestration ...
Save Cite Cited by 951 Related articles All 10 versions

But I suppose among all those scientists, you are the stable genius.

Got it.

sealover wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'denitrification'." - Into the Night

Like almost every other time when ITN asserts that "there is no such thing", it turns out that there IS such a thing as denitrification.

sealover wrote:
In its Latin roots, generic "denitrification" is the removal of nitrogen from something.

sealover wrote:
In soil science, denitrification is the microbial biochemical process that generates the lion's share of all nitrous oxide, N2O emissions on Earth.

sealover wrote:
The paper by A. Paul, et al, referenced below came out in June, 2026.

This paper was brought to my attention because it cites something I published.

This paper makes it clear that there IS such a thing as "denitrification".

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.

sealover wrote:

"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"!

sealover wrote:

May 10, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

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.

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"

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.

sealover wrote:
I'll find out.

Into the Night, this is posted MAY 18. Let someone ELSE comment before you bury it under parrot poop and call it "spam".

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'denitrification'." - Into the Night

Like almost every other time when ITN asserts that "there is no such thing", it turns out that there IS such a thing as denitrification.

There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.

sealover wrote:
In its Latin roots, generic "denitrification" is the removal of nitrogen from something.

Not Latin. Stop making shit up.

sealover wrote:
In soil science, denitrification is the microbial biochemical process that generates the lion's share of all nitrous oxide, N2O emissions on Earth.

There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.
It is not possible to measure the total nitrous oxide on Earth.

sealover wrote:
The paper by A. Paul, et al, referenced below came out in June, 2026.

This paper was brought to my attention because it cites something I published.

This paper makes it clear that there IS such a thing as "denitrification".

Science is not a paper.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.

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.

Stop making shit up.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Science is not a paper.
Science is not a search engine.

sealover wrote:

"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"!

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Climate has no temperature.

sealover wrote:

May 10, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

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.

Polyphenol is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

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

There is no such thing as 'nitrobacter-denitrifier ratio'.
Nitrate is not imported nor exported.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'ecological indicator'.

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.

There is no such thing as '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:
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.

Water is not nitrogen.
Dissolved nitrogen in water is not dangerous.
Rain is not nitric acid.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
It is not possible to measure what does not exist.

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.

Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'denitrifier'.
Nitrogen cannot be destroyed.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not organic.

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.

Science is not a paper.
There is no such thing as 'dissimilatory reduction'.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
Carbon is not organic.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Denitrifier is not a word.

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.

Science is not a cite.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
There is no such thing as 'nitrobacer-denitrifier ratio'.

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.

Nitrogen is not exported nor imported.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Nitrogen is not a 'saturation'.
Carbon is not organic.
Oxygen cannot be destroyed.

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.

There is no such thing as 'nitrobacter-denitrifier ratio'.
Nitrate is not a chemical.

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"

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.

There is no such thing as 'nitrobacter-to-denitrifier ratio'.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Rain is not nitric acid.

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.

Science is not a cite.
Nitrogen is not organic.

sealover wrote:
I'll find out.

Into the Night, this is posted MAY 18. Let someone ELSE comment before you bury it under parrot poop and call it "spam".

Your date is wrong.
Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
"Science is not a paper." - Into the Night

"Nobody ever said that it was, dumbass." - Into the Night

"You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - Into the Night

"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night

"You deny science." - Into the Night

"Inversion fallacy." - Into the Night

"You are a nothing." - Into the Night

"Your word games won't help you." - Into the Night

"You don't even know what science is." - Into the Night

"Whining gets you nowhere." - Into the Night

"Stop spamming." - Into the Night

"I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you.." - ITN

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'denitrification'." - Into the Night

Like almost every other time when ITN asserts that "there is no such thing", it turns out that there IS such a thing as denitrification.

There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.

sealover wrote:
In its Latin roots, generic "denitrification" is the removal of nitrogen from something.

Not Latin. Stop making shit up.

sealover wrote:
In soil science, denitrification is the microbial biochemical process that generates the lion's share of all nitrous oxide, N2O emissions on Earth.

There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.
It is not possible to measure the total nitrous oxide on Earth.

sealover wrote:
The paper by A. Paul, et al, referenced below came out in June, 2026.

This paper was brought to my attention because it cites something I published.

This paper makes it clear that there IS such a thing as "denitrification".

Science is not a paper.
There is no such thing as 'denitrification'.

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.

Stop making shit up.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Science is not a paper.
Science is not a search engine.

sealover wrote:

"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"!

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Climate has no temperature.

sealover wrote:

May 10, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

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.

Polyphenol is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

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

There is no such thing as 'nitrobacter-denitrifier ratio'.
Nitrate is not imported nor exported.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'ecological indicator'.

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.

There is no such thing as '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:
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.

Water is not nitrogen.
Dissolved nitrogen in water is not dangerous.
Rain is not nitric acid.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
It is not possible to measure what does not exist.

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.

Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'denitrifier'.
Nitrogen cannot be destroyed.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not organic.

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.

Science is not a paper.
There is no such thing as 'dissimilatory reduction'.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
Carbon is not organic.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Denitrifier is not a word.

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.

Science is not a cite.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
There is no such thing as 'nitrobacer-denitrifier ratio'.

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.

Nitrogen is not exported nor imported.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Nitrogen is not a 'saturation'.
Carbon is not organic.
Oxygen cannot be destroyed.

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.

There is no such thing as 'nitrobacter-denitrifier ratio'.
Nitrate is not a chemical.

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"

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.

There is no such thing as 'nitrobacter-to-denitrifier ratio'.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Rain is not nitric acid.

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.

Science is not a cite.
Nitrogen is not organic.

sealover wrote:
I'll find out.

Into the Night, this is posted MAY 18. Let someone ELSE comment before you bury it under parrot poop and call it "spam".

Your date is wrong.
Stop spamming.

sealover wrote:
Don't worry! As you have explained, Nature is just a "shit rag" and SCIENCE is NOT a publication, degree, discovery, or "recognition".

In your tiny little universe, I don't even qualify as a "scientist", let alone a "chemist". And I have NO IDEA what you think a "chemical" is, but whatever it is, it isn't what they taught me when I got my chemistry degrees.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Don't worry! As you have explained, Nature is just a "shit rag" and SCIENCE is NOT a publication, degree, discovery, or "recognition".

In your tiny little universe, I don't even qualify as a "scientist", let alone a "chemist". And I have NO IDEA what you think a "chemical" is, but whatever it is, it isn't what they taught me when I got my chemistry degrees.

These statements are generally correct, but chemistry is not a degree.

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, if you don't want to see a troll when you look in the mirror, there are two ways you can make it stop.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, if you don't want to see a troll when you look in the mirror, there are two ways you can make it stop.

There are three ways, and you omitted the 3rd, which is he does the impossible and convinces you to do the following:
1. Stop being a troll who hijacks the word "troll" to mean someone who disagrees with the people who do your thinking for you and tell you what to believe.
2. Define your terms and answer questions posed to you.
3. Stop spamming the board
4. Learn what science is.
5. Stop assuming that you don't have to show that the ocean's alkalinity is being depleted somehow.
6. Stop assuming that water never evaporates.
7. Stop assuming that you don't have to show that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is increasing somehow.
8. Stop wasting everyone's time pretending you are somehow a scientist
9. Stop being totally dishonest.
10. Stop blaming others for your own screw-ups and your own irrelevance.

Im a BM wrote:Shut up. Just shut up. You had me at troll! You had me at troll..

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Shut up. Just shut up. You had me at troll! You had me at troll..

It would appear that there is some part you didn't understand. Let me write it out here and you can tell me what you aren't quite capable of understanding:

There are three ways, and you omitted the 3rd, which is he does the impossible and convinces you to do the following:
1. Stop being a troll who hijacks the word "troll" to mean someone who disagrees with the people who do your thinking for you and tell you what to believe.
2. Define your terms and answer questions posed to you.
3. Stop spamming the board
4. Learn what science is.
5. Stop assuming that you don't have to show that the ocean's alkalinity is being depleted somehow.
6. Stop assuming that water never evaporates.
7. Stop assuming that you don't have to show that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is increasing somehow.
8. Stop wasting everyone's time pretending you are somehow a scientist
9. Stop being totally dishonest.
10. Stop blaming others for your own screw-ups and your own irrelevance.

sealover wrote:
This brand new paper deserves more attention after I get a chance to read it.

sealover wrote:
This came out 7 days ago, on the 4th of July, 2026. Maybe it was "magic".

B.A. Fubara, et al. 2026. A review on bioactive compounds mitigating climate change.

[b]sealover wrote:
It cites my 1995 paper in Nature.

"condensed tannins reduce enteric methane by 15-30% and soil N2O by 30-70%"

sealover wrote:
That is just from one sentence of the abstract. Tannins reduce cow gas (CH4) and soil N2O emissions.

sealover wrote:
This paper deserves more discussion in this thread, as it is very much on topic.

sealover wrote:
I'm sure the two remaining trolls at climate-debate.com will shit all over it.

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.

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.

sealover wrote:

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.

Your questions all deserve long and thoughtful response, but for now you just get a quick first impression.

And I may only try to make one point at this time and pick it up again tomorrow when I'm more refreshed.

Up to two meters of partially decomposed litter doesn't remain intact entirely because the high tannin content retards decomposition. The biomass is constantly adding new organic carbon to it through root and mycorrhizal turnover. Leaf litter is just one of the sources of organic carbon in it.

The old German foresters came up for classifications of different litter types.

At one end of the continuum, mull type humus. Rapidly decomposing litter is incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing detritivores. Little to no undecomposed litter can be found intact above the surface. Earthworms love it and it all gets mixed together in the upper mineral soil.

At the other end of the continuum was mor type humus. Slowly decomposing litter accumulated above the mineral soil in unmixed layers of varying stages of decomposition. Burrowing detritivores won't touch it. Even the upper mineral soil forms distinct unmixed layers.

And what blew some of the German foresters away even 150 years ago was to see the very same species of tree forming mull type humus on one soil, and more type humus on another. Beech trees have phenotypic plasticity to form different kinds of humus in response to different soil conditions.

So, I looked at pines and cypress for the same phenomenon, able to produce high tannin concentration in one soil, and much lower tannins on another. A soil acidity gradient gave us a multipoint curve to definitively show how this regulated the pathway of nitrogen cycling.

Crop mycorrhizal associations can and will be exploited as we wean ourselves off of dependence on Green Revolution crop breeds requiring soil chemotherapy.

Manipulation of feedstock tannin content has already been applied successfully for significant reduction of bovine belches and the methane they contain.

Manipulation of compost tannin content - mix and match tannin-rich residues with "hotter" manures, etc., to immobilize the nitrogen into slow release organic form. This is already being done widely.

I guess that was more than one point.

sealover wrote:

Patricio wrote:

sealover wrote:
(deleted "spam"... tee hee hee)

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.

Crop-mycorrhizal associations...

Perhaps the first thing to emphasize is that most of our crops already have at least one species of mycorrhizal fungi living in mutualist symbiotic association with the roots. In order to acquire enough nutrients from the soil, the plant feeds organic carbon to its fungal partner. This requires that photosynthate be allocated to the roots rather than the fruits we harvest. It takes a bite out of potential crop yield. It adds more organic carbon to the soil.

Starting about over a century ago, we began to use soil chemotherapy with applied nitrogen fertilizer to boost crop yields. It worked. It worked AMAZINGLY well! But it came with a cost.

I had the incredible honor of knowing Dr. Hans Jenny as a friend and mentor at UC Berkeley in the 1980s. Hans Jenny discovered that dry ammonia can be adsorbed to cation exchange sites on soil, to be retained there to fertilize crops. He became known as the soil scientist "friend of the farmer" in the corn belt.

We had a small, "sustainable agriculture" discussion group that Hans always attended. One day he told us the story, and it was fascinating. His major professor discouraged Hans from going forward with the anhydrous ammonia adsorption research, while the guy went out and got patent rights for himself. Hans never made a dime off his incredibly profitable discovery. But that was not the tale of woe. Hans had very mixed feelings about what he had accomplished. Soil organic matter content was diminishing as a result of his discovery. Nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture had increased by orders of magnitude as a result of his discovery. And crop yield increases had more than kept pace with population increase as a result of his discovery.

Nitrous oxide, N2O, is an incredibly powerful greenhouse gas with about 300x as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide, molecule per molecule. Nitrous oxide is emitted as a by product when nitrifying bacteria oxidize ammonium to nitrate. Nitrous oxide is also emitted as a byproduct when nitrate reducing bacteria, under low oxygen conditions, transform nitrate to nitrogen gas or ammonium. I'll note here that dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium (DRNA) has been discovered to rival denitrification of nitrate to nitrogen gas in many ecosystems. Unlike denitrification in which the nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere as N2, DRNA turns nitrate back into ammonium to be held against leaching by adsorption to cation exchange sites.

Okay, crop mycorrhizal associations.. Hans Jenny himself pointed it out. We had deliberately been breeding crops that didn't allocate much or any photosynthate to feed mycorrhizal fungi on their roots. By spoon feeding them nitrogen fertilizer, they hardly needed any extensive fine roots, and they didn't need to pay any symbiotic fungi to help them get it. This resulted in a reduction of organic carbon input to the soil and a net loss of soil organic matter, manifest as emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So, step 1 would be to rediscover the breeds we used to use, which weren't such high yielders but didn't need to be provided with all the chemicals by humans. Nitrogen-fixing legumes are a great example. They knew how to make their own fertilizer from the atmosphere before Han Jenny's ammonia was ever available to them. They couldn't yield as much because so much photosynthate was allocated to the symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria on their roots. But they put a lot more organic carbon back into the soil that way. With virtually no nitrous oxide emissions.

I attended one mind-bending presentation and I regret that I don't remember the guy's name. He offered many examples of how future research could maximize the benefits of crop mycorrhizal associations. He even "went there" with the genetic engineering thing, and it made sense.

A model that appeals to me personally occurred to me after meeting with Dr. David Read. He showed us the three-way-symbiosis between ericaceous shrubs, their mycorrhizal fungi, and the bacteria which live on the tips of the fungal hyphae. Fungi are chemical wizards, but bacteria have been at it for a lot longer. So, a fungi partnered with a bacteria that produces chitinase enzyme, a very expensive reagent for soil biochemistry. The bacteria can only make such and expensive enzyme because a fungus is feeding it organic carbon. The fungi only has organic carbon to give to the bacteria because the ericaceous plant is feeding organic carbon to the fungi. The plant wants nitrogen that is locked up in the chitin in the soil. Chitin is a nitrogen-containing organic compound that make arthropod exoskeleton and is a structural component in some fungi. It is very, very difficult to degrade chitin to get useful nitrogen out of it.

In the three-way symbiosis, a monolayer of bacteria on the fungal hyphal tip puts out chitinase in the microsite where the fungi found some chitin. Prompted by the fungi - HERE is where you bacteria need to put out the enzyme. Released as dissolved organic nitrogen, the fungi sucks it up and passes it along to the plant, still in organic nitrogen form. No nitrogen loss and no nitrous oxide emissions. And also a virtual monopoly on the nitrogen supply. Almost nobody else can access that chitin nitrogen. It sits there stable in the soil, until released on demand by the three-way-symbiosis between three different kingdoms of organisms. This could be a model for fertilizing crops.

The nitrogen fertilizer can be a very recalcitrant organic form of nitrogen, such as chitin, or better still a protein-tannin complex. That nitrogen ain't goin' nowhere until the plant demands it. Competing weeds can't use it. It is not going to leach away or get lost to the atmosphere. It won't aggravate global warming with nitrous oxide emissions. "On demand" fertilizer that lasts for a very long time until it is needed. I mention protein-tannin complexes because they are at least as abundant as chitin in natural soils, and are something we can "synthesize" through composting. And Dr. David Read had already shown ericaceous plants were able to exploit nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, with a litle help from their mycorrhizal partners, and no need for a bacteria.

That's enough for now. This old guy gets tired fast.

belated edit: No, that wasn't enough. I left out the more important part of what Hans Jenny told us that day.

I asked him directly if he regretted what he had done, given the severity of the nitrous oxide emission problem in agriculture. He had a sad look and a moment of silence. It was clearly something he struggled with. Finally, he said that "no" he did not regret it. People needed food and Green Revolution agriculture had made food abundant enough to stave off that big "die off" they always warned about with the "population bomb". It WOULD have happened if crop yields hadn't been significantly boosted. But now it was up to us, the younger generation of scientists (I was still young back then) to find a better way to do it. And he had some very good ideas to help us get there.

sealover wrote:

I don't know if you saw my additional edit about Hans Jenny's advise to the younger generation.

What you wrote reminded me of an expression Randy Dahlgren taught me, that he heard elsewhere:

"We're substituting oil for soil"

Use of petrochemicals and fossil fuel energy drove the Green Revolution.

And then the Green Revolution resulted in greenhouse gas emissions that rival those of fossil fuel combustion.

If drainage of wetlands, such as the peatlands of Southeast Asia counts as part of the Green Revolution, than Green-Revolution greenhouse gas emissions already EXCEED those of fossil fuel combustion.

No, people don't want to have to pay higher prices for food. People may not want their tax dollars to subsidize more sustainable agriculture either.

One thing that struck me during my time as a Peace Corps volunteer was to see the difference between societies for what percentage of income went to food.

I grew up in a country where people paid a lot more for rent or mortgages than for food. More for cars than for food. We had the luxury of only needing to spend a small percentage of our total income just to eat.

Food WILL have to "cost" more, one way or another,

There are ways to ensure that it doesn't hit the poorest people the hardest.

Patricio wrote:

sealover wrote:

I would never have guessed you're even older than myself.

I'm still delighted by what happened when you spelled out exactly why the sea water chemistry assertions being made were just wrong, scientifically.

Such as the absurdity of nearly all the "is not a chemical" claims.

Into the Night is used to his "there is no such thing as.." (something that everyone with the most basic education knows to exist) being the last word.

I think the most recent such sentence that struck me was, "there is no such thing as biochemistry". Just wish it out of existence. Meaningless "buzzword".

They refuse to believe any source I cite or quote.

But then they got the same accurate information presented to them as a rebuttal that clearly identified where their specific assertions could be shown to be anti scientific and wrong.

The fact that it was the SAME correct information they had seen from me, it proved you must be my "sock". How ELSE could we converge on the same definition for the same basic term used by scientists? It's not like anyone could find them in a texbook or something. Science is not a textbook. Science is not a chemical. Science is not a lot of things and a lot of things are not chemicals.

I guess I had to get one last dig in at ITN.

Back to policy, though.

If I had to choose how to spend all available resources to address climate change and I were only given two choices - minimize GHG emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion or maximize GHG sequestration by natural or managed ecosystems, I know we can get ten times more bang for the buck going with the second choice. And people still get to drive their cars.

The sock puppet theory is my favorite. We arrive at the same definition--you know, the ones that are actually in the textbooks--and the only possible conclusion is a conspiracy. How brilliant! How did we miss that?

And yes, "there is no such thing as biochemistry" is a sentence that should be bronzed -- as a monument to motivated ignorance. I swear, they repeat this "no such thing" line over and over, and it really does grind on the nerves. I suspect they do it intentionally, which would put them squarely in the "troll" category, wouldn't it? Hmmmm.

Your point about bang for the buck is hard to dismiss. Emissions reduction policy is politically brutal, economically disruptive, and moves at the speed of legislation and international negotiation -- which is to say, glacially (and yes, I'm aware of the irony of that word given what's happening to glaciers). Ecosystem restoration can begin tomorrow, is distributed, is often community-scalable, and has co-benefits -- biodiversity, water retention, soil fertility, coastal protection -- that emissions reduction simply doesn't.

So where do I land? Probably here: sequestration deserves a much larger share of resources and attention than it currently gets, you're almost certainly right about that. But I'd frame it as an essential complement rather than a superior alternative. The sink has to grow AND the source has to shrink, or we're in a losing race. The math simply doesn't balance if we keep pouring emissions into the atmosphere at our current rate while relying solely on nature to clean it up.
What's your read on the ceiling? What's the most credible upper bound you've seen for realistic additional sequestration capacity -- natural plus managed -- per year?

IBdaMann wrote:

Patricio wrote:That's troll talk.

Case in point, thank you. You recognize that I disagree with the people who do your thinking for you.

Patricio wrote: I don't think,

I get that much.

Patricio wrote: if I don't understand a common term, I'll look it up.

You can't "look up" how someone is misusing a term. You can't know what someone means by a hijacked term he will not define (and often cannot define).

Anyway, I figured you would defend the non-definition of terms. You're a troll.

Patricio wrote:That's called projecting,

Nope. You are just a troll who doesn't understand the subject matter you are hyping.

Patricio wrote: If you think you are an adversary with anyone you disagree with,

In English, we consider it very poor form to end a clause with a preposition. You should have written "of anyone with whom you disagree".

What is your first language, if you don't mind me asking?

Patricio wrote:... but it isn't mine.

I gather that much. You seem to simply OBEY other leftists in your echo chamber, like an attack dog.

Patricio wrote: No, you're a troll.

You're a troll, and a very stupid one. You should probably stick with your crayons at the kids' table in a place that caters to whatever language you speak.

Patricio wrote: What all trolls have in common is disingenuousness and a 'my way or the highway' attitude.

That is you.

Patricio wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as 'carbon sequestration'.

Patricio wrote

No? A Google Scholar search on those keywords (adding soil, since that is the topic), yeilds:

Carbon sequestration in soil
R Lal, W Negassa, K Lorenz - Current Opinion in Environmental ..., 2015 - Elsevier
... Soil carbon (C) sequestration implies transferring of atmospheric CO 2 into soil of a land
unit through its plants. Co-benefits of soil C sequestration include: advancing food and ...
Save Cite Cited by 767 Related articles All 15 versions
[PDF] researchgate.net
Carbon sequestration in soils
JP Bruce, M Frome, E Haites, H Janzen... - Journal of soil and ..., 1999 - Taylor & Francis
... T potential for carbon sequestration in the soil as a means of reducing carbon dioxide (CO,) ...
, (c) the methods available for estimating carbon sequestration on a farm or regional level, (d...
Save Cite Cited by 746 Related articles All 10 versions
[PDF] researchgate.net
Carbon sequestration in soils
WH Schlesinger - Science, 1999 - science.org
... soil organic matter (SOM) adds to soil fertility, water retention, and crop production. Recently,
many soil scientists have suggested that the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide ...
Save Cite Cited by 762 Related articles All 12 versions
Mechanisms of carbon sequestration in soil aggregates
H Blanco-Canqui, R Lal - Critical reviews in plant sciences, 2004 - Taylor & Francis
... SOC sequestration. The objectives of this article are to: (1) describe the importance of ...
and soil functions on SOC sequestration, (2) review the mechanisms of SOC sequestration ...
Save Cite Cited by 951 Related articles All 10 versions

But I suppose among all those scientists, you are the stable genius.

Got it.

sealover wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'denitrification'." - Into the Night

Like almost every other time when ITN asserts that "there is no such thing", it turns out that there IS such a thing as denitrification.

In its Latin roots, generic "denitrification" is the removal of nitrogen from something.

In soil science, denitrification is the microbial biochemical process that generates the lion's share of all nitrous oxide, N2O emissions on Earth.

The paper by A. Paul, et al, referenced below came out in June, 2026.

This paper was brought to my attention because it cites something I published.

This paper makes it clear that there IS such a thing as "denitrification".

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

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"!
---------------------------------------------------------

May 10, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.
I'll find out.

Into the Night, this is posted MAY 18. Let someone ELSE comment before you bury it under parrot poop and call it "spam".

sealover wrote:
This brand new paper deserves more attention after I get a chance to read it.

This came out 7 days ago, on the 4th of July, 2026. Maybe it was "magic".

B.A. Fubara, et al. 2026. A review on bioactive compounds mitigating climate change. Discover Chemistry(2026) 3:385

It cites my 1995 paper in Nature.

"condensed tannins reduce enteric methane by 15-30% and soil N2O by 30-70%"

That is just from one sentence of the abstract. Tannins reduce cow gas (CH4) and soil N2O emissions.

This paper deserves more discussion in this thread, as it is very much on topic.

I'm sure the two remaining trolls at climate-debate.com will shit all over it.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
July 3, 2025 News story from University of Leeds research paper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:

Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
First, it will fail because it will never happen. Short of a humanity extinction event, there is no realistic way to get everyone to stop using the stuff.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough.

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

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Some are inventing technological devices to try to do this. Others are attempting to enable natural ecosystems to sequester more carbon dioxide.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
In theory, if we provided enough bioavailable iron to the sea, it would act as fertilizer for a whole lot more marine photosynthesis to sequester CO2.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Natural ecosystems are often very good at sequestering carbon dioxide.

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

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Peasant agricultural science discovered thousands of years ago how to mimic the nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems in our food production.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:

'ecosystem' is not a word.
Food production is not a buzzword.
Science is not a form of government.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:

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

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

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