Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
...deleted vanity spam...
I like and respect Ann Hagerman and Inderjit. They cited me in this paper. The "organic nitrogen cycle" sounds strange. It is the short circuiting of the classic nitrogen cycle, facilitated by symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi on the tannin producer's roots. Organic nitrogen in decomposing matter does not get mineralized to ammonium or nitrate before being taken up by the plant. The fungal partner mobilizes the recalcitrant organic nitrogen and transfers it to the plant in organic nitrogen form.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
For the carbon cycle, this gets more organic carbon into the soil, rather than returned to the atmosphere as CO2. The plant provides a lot of organic carbon to the fungi partner, who then spreads that organic carbon far and wide in its network of hyphael strands. These ecosystems put a lot of organic carbon into the soil, where most of it sticks around for a while.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
For the nitrogen cycle, this organic nitrogen cycle part of it prevents the emission of nitrous oxide, N2O, by ammonia oxidizing bacteria or by nitrate reducing bacteria. Nitrous oxide is a powerful and important greenhouse gas.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Ann Hagerman came into tannin biochemistry research because people in her field were convinced that tannins (polyphenols) were selected for in evolution as anti herbivore defenses. I first came across her work in a report she wrote about exceptionally high tannin in a fern species that formed monospecific thickets. Inderjit invited me to publish my own fern thicket polyphenol work in a book he was editing.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
And now Hagerman and Inderjit have followed up with this newest paper. After I read the whole thing, there may be more to say here about it. I love that they cited my work for it. It compensates for the deep wounds of internet troll insults.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
July 23, 2025 - New paper by Bartosz Adamczyk came out (online) 7 days ago. They cite me, of course.

Bartosz Adamczyk et al. 2025. Nitrogen fertilization of boreal forest soil increases soil carbon pool through elevated microbial necromass formation but also modifies tree secondary metabolism. Soil Biology and Biochemistry Volume 209, October 2025, 109917

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Essentially, they show increased soil carbon storage when taiga soil is fertilized with nitrogen. They also showed reduced tannin concentration in foliage of boreal trees fertilized by nitrogen. But the most important "new" finding is how much a little nitrogen fertilizer can increase the amount of dead microbial biomass ("necromass") in soil. I can't wait to read it. I've just heard flattering things about it, and I thrive on flattery. I'll be especially curious to see WHERE they did the experiment - In a "normal" taiga forest, or in a place where permafrost has melted? Watch this space...

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
A few of the newest thread-topic-relevant relevant papers to cite sealover...

...deleted vanity spam...

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
May 21, 2026 Biogeochemistry Update

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:

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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio 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).

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio 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)

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
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

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
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

Nitrogen is not a rock.
Nitrogen is not derived.
Phosphorus is not derived.
There is no such thing as 'riverine nutrient'
[quote]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio 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.

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio 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)

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Randy Dahlgren is retired now, too. He won just about every award they had to give before he did.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.

Im a BM wrote: 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 wrote: I think it was fifteen years ago when I first read about the quantities of [plant food] emitted to the atmosphere from the disturbed peatlands of Southeast Asia.

Im a BM wrote: An undisturbed peatland is a "sink" for carbon dioxide

Im a BM wrote: 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 wrote: The point is that our fossil fuel emissions are becoming a minority part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Im a BM wrote: 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 wrote: Climate change itself,

Im a BM wrote: due primarily to increased [abundance of plant food]

Im a BM wrote: Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails

Im a BM 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 wrote: First, it will fail because it will never happen.

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

Im a BM wrote:There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote: Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.

Im a BM wrote: The warming of the tundra.

Im a BM wrote: The increased frequency and severity of wildfires.

Im a BM wrote: The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink".

Im a BM wrote: Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel.

Im a BM wrote: Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote: 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 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 wrote: Some are inventing technological devices to try to do this.

Im a BM wrote: Others are attempting to enable natural ecosystems to sequester more carbon dioxide.

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

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.

sealover wrote:
July 17, 2026

Newest paper to cite sealover's dissolved organic nitrogen assay method, came out three weeks ago.

Xiao Wei, et al. 2026. Adaptive microbial life-history strategies mediate soil nitrogen cycling across cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Volume 411, 1 November 2026, 110608

sealover wrote:
I need to read it, as well as the newest paper by Fubara et al (2026) to have more to say about how it is relevant to the thread topic.


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

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.

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

Ann Y. Polyakov, et al. 2026. Spatiotemporal differences in salmon nutrient inputs restructure functional and taxonomic fungal communities in riparian systems. (Still a preprint from bioRxiv)

JA Ceja-Navarro, et al. 2026. Ecosystems retrogression enhances cross-domain microbial stability and increases the genetic potential for nutrient cycling. mLife 2026 doi.org/10.1002/mlf2.70087

SO Afriyie. 2026. Influence of elevated carbon dioxide (eCO2) on microbial communities linked to carbon cycling in mangrove sediments.

Xiao Wei, et al. 2026. Adaptive microbial life-history strategies mediate soil nitrogen cycling across cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Volume 411, 1 November 2026, 110608

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

IBdaMann wrote:
These had to have been written by BabbleGibberChemicals:

Ann Y. Polyakov, et al. 2026. Spatiotemporal differences in salmon nutrient inputs restructure functional and taxonomic fungal communities in riparian systems. (Still a preprint from bioRxiv)

* Spatiotemporal differences - How far apart they are geographically and by how much time they missed each other. This is the kind of stuff everyone needs to know

* salmon nutrient inputs - This is the fuqking title, the author is supposed to say what those "inputs" are. The author could have simply written "nitrogen" but that would have defeated the purpose of making this article the completely convoluted waste of bandwidth it was always meant to be.

* "restructure functional and taxonomic fungal communities" - should have just written "affect the mycobiome's size and shape" ... but that would have been easily understood, and we can't have that, now can we?

* "in riparian systems" - the author probably doesn't even know what a system is, and one can bet the farm that there is no unambiguous definition, because the author is just like Robert, a scientifically illiterate moron who publishes word salads in shit rags just to feel important.

There is obviously nothing of value in this article, nor was there ever any intended to be.

JA Ceja-Navarro, et al. 2026. Ecosystems retrogression enhances cross-domain microbial stability and increases the genetic potential for nutrient cycling. mLife 2026 doi.org/10.1002/mlf2.70087

This title should have been "As ecosystems age, microbes step up to the plate." However, you seem to be saying that the title should have been "Nutrient poor soils are dominated by fungi rather than bacteria." Compositionally, I think that is just one of the ramifications that should be noted.

In any event, whoever wrote the title is an idiot, probably reflected in the article.

SO Afriyie. 2026. Influence of elevated carbon dioxide (eCO2) on microbial communities linked to carbon cycling in mangrove sediments.

The word "linked" gets the article tossed. "Linked" means nothing. The author could have written "Influence of elevated carbon dioxide (eCO2) on microbial communities linked to the Big Bang." Junior league wannabes should learn how to write first. Thereafter, they should think through their material and actually form a coherent point that is somewhat value-added. I should submit a paper to Nature titled "Influence of elevated carbon dioxide (eCO2) on Microbial Communities Linked to Ozone Depletion Killing off Dominican Coral Reefs through Ocean Acidification"

Xiao Wei, et al. 2026. Adaptive microbial life-history strategies mediate soil nitrogen cycling across cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Volume 411, 1 November 2026, 110608

This one is fine. It also happens to be common knowledge. I should write a similar paper titled "Regular maintenance on your vehicle determines how well it performs and for how long." Everyone knows that the type of crops determine the prevalent microbes in the soil which determine how various plants fare.

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

Too funny! Discover Chemistry is a co-generator of IPCC reports. The IPCC turns to Springer Nature (jointly owned by European interests Holtzbrinck Publishing Group and BC Partners) who owns Discover Chemistry, for content for the IPCC reports. Discover Chemistry and Springer Nature have no use for science, so they don't publish any. All they care about is supporting the Marxist agenda of the European Union and the socialist agenda of the IPCC.

This article contains no definition of the global climate or of climate change.

Are all of these articles written by Marxist trolls? Who knows?

Im a BM wrote:
"Are all of these articles written by Marxist trolls? Who knows?" - IBdaMann

Pick me, Teacher! PLEASE PICK ME!

I DO know.

No, not every one of these article was written by Marxist trolls.

But for some insight into how the so-called "peer review" process works...

In the first hours after my very first post here, IBdaMann was attacking... exposing my scientific illiteracy and fraudulence.

Im a BM wrote:
I mentioned that I had authored some widely-cited, peer-reviewed scientific papers that had gotten a lot of attention from climate scientists, in multiple journals, including the highly prestigious journal Nature, and the up-and-coming major journal of significance Biogeochemistry.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann had a devastating comeback:

"Translation: 'I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM, and Communist Party chapters!"

That you did.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
This deep insight into the peer review process explains it all.

Im a BM wrote:
A journal such as Nature contacts the local "Communist Party chapter" where the author lives before making any editorial decisions.

That makes sense, right?

IBdaMann's basic delusional nature is revealed. He is a conspiracy nut!

Im a BM wrote:
Who also happens to be an arrogant, obnoxious, scientifically-illiterate troll who found a rabbit hole with no moderator to ban him.

Im a BM wrote:
Everyone else left voluntarily.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no point wasting time trying to have a rational discussion with him.

He doesn't even know how to READ!

Im a BM wrote:
But he'll find assertions that only he could see, and he will NAIL you on it.

Apparently, I unknowingly asserted that "water cannot evaporate".

Im a BM wrote:
That was a stupid thing to say, if I ever really said it.
It was and is a stupid thing that you continue to say.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Yes, water CAN evaporate.

But evaporation cannot remove the acidifying effects of carbonic acid, or the resulting depletion of carbonate ion bioavailability.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, carbonic acid can be found at ANY elevation in sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
One of the denialist tropes I saw at Facebook was to point out those areas of the sea where upwelling of deep water brings high concentrations of dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid up to the surface.

Im a BM wrote:
In those places, natural selection has favored calcareous plankton which form their CaCO3 shells using BICARBONATE ION, HCO3-, rather than carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as raw material for shell formation. They thrive in the "acidified" sea. They prove that ocean acidification from higher CO2 in the atmosphere is actually BENEFICIAL to marine organisms.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann and his second rate sidekick could never FIND such information to use as ammunition for "debate". So, they just make shit up instead.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Are all of these articles written by Marxist trolls? Who knows?" - IBdaMann

Pick me, Teacher! PLEASE PICK ME!

I DO know.

No, not every one of these article was written by Marxist trolls.

But for some insight into how the so-called "peer review" process works...

In the first hours after my very first post here, IBdaMann was attacking... exposing my scientific illiteracy and fraudulence.

I don't blame him.
Science does not use consensus.
Science is not a 'peer review process'.

Im a BM wrote:
I mentioned that I had authored some widely-cited, peer-reviewed scientific papers that had gotten a lot of attention from climate scientists, in multiple journals, including the highly prestigious journal Nature, and the up-and-coming major journal of significance Biogeochemistry.

Science is not a paper.
Science does not use consensus.
There is no voting bloc in science.
Climate is not a science.
Science is not a journal, magazine, or paper.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann had a devastating comeback:

"Translation: 'I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM, and Communist Party chapters!"

That you did.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
This deep insight into the peer review process explains it all.

Science is not a 'review process'.

Im a BM wrote:
A journal such as Nature contacts the local "Communist Party chapter" where the author lives before making any editorial decisions.

That makes sense, right?

IBdaMann's basic delusional nature is revealed. He is a conspiracy nut!

It does make sense.
The Democrat party is a conspiracy. Yes...they are nuts.
IBdaMann is not a Democrat.

Im a BM wrote:
Who also happens to be an arrogant, obnoxious, scientifically-illiterate troll who found a rabbit hole with no moderator to ban him.

You are describing yourself, Robert.
Yes, people like you have been banned from here before.
Branner probably only tolerates it because of low traffic here.

Im a BM wrote:
Everyone else left voluntarily.

Not everyone has left, Robert, despite your spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no point wasting time trying to have a rational discussion with him.

He doesn't even know how to READ!

You are describing yourself again.

Im a BM wrote:
But he'll find assertions that only he could see, and he will NAIL you on it.

Apparently, I unknowingly asserted that "water cannot evaporate".

And you still continue to do so.

Im a BM wrote:
That was a stupid thing to say, if I ever really said it.
It was and is a stupid thing that you continue to say.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Yes, water CAN evaporate.

But evaporation cannot remove the acidifying effects of carbonic acid, or the resulting depletion of carbonate ion bioavailability.

Still trying to deny that water can evaporate, I see.
Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, carbonic acid can be found at ANY elevation in sea water.

Carbonic acid is generally found near the surface.

Im a BM wrote:
One of the denialist tropes I saw at Facebook was to point out those areas of the sea where upwelling of deep water brings high concentrations of dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid up to the surface.

No upwelling of CO2 except in very localized sites.
No upwelling of carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
In those places, natural selection has favored calcareous plankton which form their CaCO3 shells using BICARBONATE ION, HCO3-, rather than carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as raw material for shell formation. They thrive in the "acidified" sea. They prove that ocean acidification from higher CO2 in the atmosphere is actually BENEFICIAL to marine organisms.

What 'natural selection'??
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
HCO3- is not a chemical.
CO3(2-) is not a chemical.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
CO2 is not an acid.
The ocean is not the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann and his second rate sidekick could never FIND such information to use as ammunition for "debate". So, they just make shit up instead.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
There is no debate here.

Im a BM wrote:
I predict that Into the Night will very soon spam across nearly every thread on the home page.

Im a BM wrote:
I also predict that he won't put more than 30 seconds of thought into any of his answers. In the space of five or ten minutes, he'll put of five or ten meaningless posts. "Science is not a refrigerator", "Communism is not a chemical'' "illiterate is not a scientifically" "Some random word is not some other random word from the same paragraph" "Just believe me without any credible references because I'm a CHEMIST!"

sealover wrote:
Another recent paper which cites "sealover":

sealover wrote:
Not too long ago it was discovered that in at least some forested water catchments, the largest source of exogenous bioavailable nitrogen entering the system is via salmon. They accumulate marine nitrogen in their bodies (mainly as protein) and then transport it upland and upstream to terrestrial ecosystems.

sealover wrote:
This article points out, among other things, that the kind of fungi that are best adapted to exploit salmon nitrogen deposited in the soil as bear poop, etc., are not the same as the fungi that dominate salmon-free, forested water catchments

sealover wrote:
They cite my work as identifying the contrasting ecosystem dynamics, where mycorrhizal fungi associated with tree roots dominate, and they monopolize the very limited nitrogen supply.

sealover wrote:
Big picture: Ecosystems with sufficient water and soil nutrient availability form "mull" type humus that readily decomposes and gets incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing organisms. Ecosystems with sufficient water but low soil nutrient availability form "mor" type humus, with unincorporated litter accumulating on the soil surface and distinct stratification of separate soil layers.

sealover wrote:
This new paper gets into the "cross-domain" (fungi versus bacteria in different KINGDOMS of living things) phenomenon observed. Nutrient poor soils are dominated by fungi rather than bacteria, with mycorrhizal fungi accounting for most of the fungal biomass. Nutrient rich soils are dominated by bacteria with rapid turnover of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. via bacterial decomposition.

sealover wrote:
It's too soon for me to get the actual paper to find out why they cited me. But notice that word "mangrove" up in there. Just BEGGING to be ridiculed! Go for it, you scientifically-illiterate TROLLS! Aren't mangroves worthy of ridicule?

sealover wrote:
Newest paper to cite sealover's dissolved organic nitrogen assay method, came out three weeks ago.

sealover wrote:
"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.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Another recent paper which cites "sealover":

You are claiming a paper cites 'sealover'?? Hilarious!

sealover wrote:
Not too long ago it was discovered that in at least some forested water catchments, the largest source of exogenous bioavailable nitrogen entering the system is via salmon. They accumulate marine nitrogen in their bodies (mainly as protein) and then transport it upland and upstream to terrestrial ecosystems.

A forest is not a pond or lake.
There is no such thing as 'exogenous bioavailable nitrogen'.
Nitrogen is not a fish.
NItrogen is not a marine.
Ecosystem is a meaningless buzzword.

sealover wrote:
This article points out, among other things, that the kind of fungi that are best adapted to exploit salmon nitrogen deposited in the soil as bear poop, etc., are not the same as the fungi that dominate salmon-free, forested water catchments

A forest is not a pond or lake.
Nitrogen is not a fish.
Nitrogen is not bear poop.
Nitrogen is not a fungus.

sealover wrote:
They cite my work as identifying the contrasting ecosystem dynamics, where mycorrhizal fungi associated with tree roots dominate, and they monopolize the very limited nitrogen supply.

Magick Words (contrasting ecosystem dynamics, mycorrhizal, dominate, monopolize, very limited, supply): Buzzword fallacies.
Nitrogen is not a supply.
Nitrogen is not 'very limited'

sealover wrote:
Big picture: Ecosystems with sufficient water and soil nutrient availability form "mull" type humus that readily decomposes and gets incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing organisms. Ecosystems with sufficient water but low soil nutrient availability form "mor" type humus, with unincorporated litter accumulating on the soil surface and distinct stratification of separate soil layers.

Magick Words (ecosystem, sufficient water, soil nutrient availability, burrowing organism, mineral soil, unincorporated litter, stratification): Buzzword fallacies.
All soil is mineral.
Nitrogen is not humus.
Nitrogen is not an organism.
Nitrogen is not a mineral.

sealover wrote:
This new paper gets into the "cross-domain" (fungi versus bacteria in different KINGDOMS of living things) phenomenon observed. Nutrient poor soils are dominated by fungi rather than bacteria, with mycorrhizal fungi accounting for most of the fungal biomass. Nutrient rich soils are dominated by bacteria with rapid turnover of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. via bacterial decomposition.

Magick Words (cross=domain fungi, bacteria, kingdom, phenomenon, mycorrhizal, biomass, rapid turnover, decomposition): Buzzword fallacies.
Nitrogen is not a kingdom.
Nitrogen is not a fungus.
Nitrogen is not a bacterium.
Nitrogen is not a domain.

sealover wrote:
It's too soon for me to get the actual paper to find out why they cited me. But notice that word "mangrove" up in there. Just BEGGING to be ridiculed! Go for it, you scientifically-illiterate TROLLS! Aren't mangroves worthy of ridicule?

Why would a mangrove be worthy of ridicule, Robert?
You can't blame your illiteracy on anyone else. Inversion fallacy.
You can't blame your trolling on anyone else. Inversion fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Newest paper to cite sealover's dissolved organic nitrogen assay method, came out three weeks ago.

Nitrogen is not organic.

sealover wrote:
"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.

Tannins is not a chemical.
Enteric methane is not a chemical.
Cows are not gas.
A cow is not methane.
Soil is not laughing gas.

Im a BM wrote: Nitrogen is not a lot of things!

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night must be some kind of nitrogen chemistry expert!

Im a BM wrote: And I learned so many new things from his post. "Nitrogen is not a fish."

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Nitrogen is not a lot of things!

Only the bioindifferent nitrogen.

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night must be some kind of nitrogen chemistry expert!

Into the Night's expertise only covers the plain, vanilla nitrogen. He can't match your biogeoknowledge of inorganic bioavailable organics.

Im a BM wrote: And I learned so many new things from his post. "Nitrogen is not a fish."

You have learned many things for the first time on Climate-Debate.

Im a BM wrote: It's time for a SHOWDOWN! IBdaMann, I challenge you to a duel for the position of dominant troll here.

Im a BM wrote: I know you can't fight without backup,

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
...deleted spam...
Another recent paper which cites "sealover":
...deleted spam...
This paper deserves more discussion in this thread, as it is very much on topic.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
...deleted spam...
Another recent paper which cites "sealover":
...deleted spam...
This paper deserves more discussion in this thread, as it is very much on topic.

Stop spamming.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Into the Night, your scientific skills are on display again!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Applying the Scientific Method to the data available here, you concluded that "Patricio" isn't a real, independent human being.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Your reputation as a poster at Usenet included constant false accusations that some other poster was really an AI bot and not a real, independent human being.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Your reputation, as Google will reveal to anyone who seeks to learn more about the history of the scientifically-illiterate troll who calls himself "Into the Night" at internet climate discussion sites, is for "shutting down" discussions with "relentless semantic nitpicking and rejection of scientific definitions", "Redefining Science", and "Redefining chemicals".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Maybe you are just being a troll and trying to provoke a reaction with the ABSURD assertion that Patricio is not an actual, independent human being and NOT my "sock". Doing so even though you know it's bullshit, just to piss off...

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
But given the other stupid shit you post, I suspect that you are actually STUPID and DELUSIONAL enough to believe the stupid false accusations you make.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.

sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.

sealover wrote:
Newest related paper to cite sealover!

September 13, 2026 update, paper came out five days ago.

A.Y. Polyakov, et al including Kristina A. Vogt and Eric A. Hobbie! 2026. Ectomycorrhizal fungi as a reservoir of salmon-derived nitrogen in riparian forests. (I need to get complete citation)

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Newest related paper to cite sealover!

September 13, 2026 update, paper came out five days ago.

A.Y. Polyakov, et al including Kristina A. Vogt and Eric A. Hobbie! 2026. Ectomycorrhizal fungi as a reservoir of salmon-derived nitrogen in riparian forests. (I need to get complete citation)

Kristina Vogt co authored a paper with Randy Dahlgren, Zengshou Yu, and I, published in Nature in 1995. Eric Hobbie... Well, here's what Google says...

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Google inquiry: "E.A. Hobbie and R.R. Northup"

Google AI say: "E.A. Hobbie (Eric A. Hobbie) and R.R. Northup (Robert R. Northup) are two highly influential researchers in the fields of ecosystem ecology, biogeochemistry, and soil science. While they are distinct scientists who approach ecosystems from slightly different angles, their combined literature fundamentally shaped modern understanding of how plants and fungi actively control nitrogen cycling and carbon sequestration."

[b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
In this newest paper, they use nitrogen stable isotope analysis to conclude that salmon-derived nitrogen is being taken up by ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with forest trees. Among other findings, about 28% of the nitrogen in the riparian forest fungal sporocarps came from salmon.
[/b]

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
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.
[b]

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Newest related paper to cite sealover!

September 13, 2026 update, paper came out five days ago.

A.Y. Polyakov, et al including Kristina A. Vogt and Eric A. Hobbie! 2026. Ectomycorrhizal fungi as a reservoir of salmon-derived nitrogen in riparian forests. (I need to get complete citation)

Let's talk about this.

This paper comes as close to saying absolutely nothing as humanly possible while using the minimal number of words to count as a "paper." If I may phrase the thesis statement of the paper:

"There is an unspecified probability inferred from δ15N voodoo that roughly 28% of the nitrogen contained in Ectomycorrhizal fungi pertains to the influence of the riparian forest's salmon."

Let me know if I am mistaken. I believe your paper is cited only as legitimization for concluding that "organic" nitrogen is at play, and not exclusively "inorganic" nitrogen. Am I correct?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
IBdaMann, you are not correct.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
So, what else is new?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:

I ENCOURAGE ALL THE KIDS TO TRY THIS AT HOME!

Google the search term: "Why is the internet persona known as 'IBdaMann' widely viewed as a 'troll' at climate discussion websites?"

Google has a long and detailed reply.

"The internet persona 'IBdaMann' is widely viewed as a 'troll' across various climate discussion platforms, political forums, and message boards due to a highly recognizable pattern of aggressive contrarianism, repetitive semantics, and bad-faith debating tactics.

[b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Rather than engaging in constructive scientific debate, the user employs specific online behaviors designed to disrupt conversations and exhaust other participants. The core reasons for this reputation include:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
1. Pedantic Semantics and Word Games

A signature tactic of IBdaMann is derailing discussions by obsessing over terminology rather than addressing empirical scientific evidence. shifting the focus from climate data to endless semantic arguments.. (too much to copy)

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
2. Standard Climate Denial Tropes

IBdaMann routinely posts well-worn climate change denial myths. ..mainstream climate science is completely fraudulent, misinterpreting basic physics.. they present these debunked talking points as absolute facts. ..they are viewed as a bad-faith actor.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
3. 'Sealioning' and Burden Shifting

..relies on 'sealioning', a trolling technique.. with relentless, superficially polite requests for evidence or answers to basic questions.. IBdaMann will reject the sources out of hand, move the goalposts, or demand that opponents 'prove' an impossible negative, ensuring that the debate can never reach a resolution.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
4. Personal Attacks and Deflection

When cornered with undeniable data or clear logic, the persona frequently shifts from the topic to personal insults, condescension, or accusing opponents of being 'brainwashed' or uneducated. This combative, anti-intellectual posture is a hallmark of internet trolling intended to provoke emotional reactions rather than foster an actual dialogue."[/b]

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Newest related paper to cite sealover!

September 13, 2026 update, paper came out five days ago.

A.Y. Polyakov, et al including Kristina A. Vogt and Eric A. Hobbie! 2026. Ectomycorrhizal fungi as a reservoir of salmon-derived nitrogen in riparian forests. (I need to get complete citation)

Let's talk about this.

This paper comes as close to saying absolutely nothing as humanly possible while using the minimal number of words to count as a "paper." If I may phrase the thesis statement of the paper:

"There is an unspecified probability inferred from δ15N voodoo that roughly 28% of the nitrogen contained in Ectomycorrhizal fungi pertains to the influence of the riparian forest's salmon."

Let me know if I am mistaken. I believe your paper is cited only as legitimization for concluding that "organic" nitrogen is at play, and not exclusively "inorganic" nitrogen. Am I correct?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
IBdaMann, you are not correct.

So, what else is new?

I ENCOURAGE ALL THE KIDS TO TRY THIS AT HOME!

Google the search term: "Why is the internet persona known as 'IBdaMann' widely viewed as a 'troll' at climate discussion websites?"

Google has a long and detailed reply.
...deleted repetition...

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
...deleted spam...
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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.
[b]
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
...deleted spam...
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.

Ecosystem is not a word.
Cropping is not a system.
Carbon is not a sequester.
Carbon is not organic.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'chemical ecology'.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemical mechanism'.
Carbon is not regulated.
Nitrogen is not a cycle.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter.

Tannin is not a chemical.
Carbon is not organic.
Carbon is not a fungus.
There is no such thing as 'recalcitrant complexes'.
Protein-tannin is not a chemical.
Protein-tannin is not a complex.
Nitrogen is not organic.
Nitrogen is not a cycle.
Nitrogen is not carbon.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Photosynthate is not achemical.
Carbon is not dirt.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form.

Tannin is not a chemical.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
Nitrate is not a chemical.
Nitrogen is not a bacterium.
Nitrate is not a bacterium.
Nitrate cannot reduced.
Nitrogen is not organic.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses.

Tannin is not a chemical.
Tannin is not dirt.
Sand is not an acid.
Organic is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter.

Tannin is not a chemical.
Tannin is not a substrate.
Humic is not a chemical.
Humic is not dirt.
Carbon is not a sequester.
Organic is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.
[b]
...deleted spam...

There is no such thing as 'polyphenol biogeochemistry'.
Carbon is not a sequester.
Carbon is not nitrous oxide.
Tannin is not a chemical.
Organic is not chemical.
Nitrogen cannot be immobilized.
Mineralized organic is not a chemical.
Crop-mycorrhizal is not a chemical.
Nitrogen is not dirt.
There is no such thing as 'raclcitrant nitrogen'.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
See, if Branner paid ANY attention to what goes on at his website...
..deleted whining...
...deleted spam...

sealover wrote:
Newest related paper to cite sealover!
...deleted mindless repetition and spamming...

sealover wrote:spam deleted