Remember me
▼ Content

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems



Page 14 of 25<<<1213141516>>>
17-04-2023 14:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14545)
HarveyH55 wrote:Anything that can survive in water is an 'amphibian'.

Is that what was claimed or is that your intentional mischaracterization?

Humans can survive in water. I recall humans being excluded from the "amphibious" category.

HarveyH55 wrote: Semantics is everything silly.

This is an anonymous message board. Semantics are all we have.

HarveyH55 wrote:Any attempt at discussing a specific sub-group, is quickly deflected to the larger group, to avoid possible ignorance.

Any attempt to clarify semantics and to speak n English results in bitching and whining and griping and complaining by those whose efforts to hide their ignorance are now being thwarted.

There's no reason an honest person can't learn what "amphibious" means if he has forgotten.

There's no reason an honest person can't learn what a hydrocarbon is, or learn about the Fischer-Tropsh process.
RE: lignin and nitrogen cycling - my most famous paper18-04-2023 20:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
There is a tiny chance that someone other than an Internet troll will read this.

Carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling are very important regarding climate change.

Polyphenols and lignin are very important regarding carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling.

My most famous scientific paper was published in the journal Nature, in 1995.

It has been cited in 765 different peer-reviewed scientific papers and textbooks.

It includes lignin research and proves that lignin is NOT the most important regulator of nitrogen cycling.

The paper: Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.
1995. Nature. Volume 377. Pages 227-229.

Quoting from Figure 2 - "...and lignin was measured by the acid detergent method (reference #30). Regressions of these parameters versus the ratio of DON:mineral nitrogen were as follows: Condensed tannins (r2 = 0.99, p = <0.001), total phenolics (r2 = 0.90, p = <0.001), C:N ratio (r2 = 0.76, p = <0.001), and lignin (not significant)."


In the pine litter samples studied, lignin ranged from 20-40%. But release of mineral nitrogen was not significantly correlated to lignin. However, it was highly significantly correlated to condensed tannin and total phenolic content.

Scientists in the real world who know what lignin is and study it took this very seriously.

It has been known for more than a century that lignin can form strong complexes with protein. These ligno protein complexes are very difficult for microorganisms to degrade. Release of mineral nitrogen from them is slow.

Lignin can also form strong complexes with carbohydrates. These lignin-carbohydrate complexes are a common component of cell walls, where all the lignin is found.

The acid detergent method separates all carbohydrates from lignin-carbohydrate complexes, dissolving the saccharide and leaving behind the lignin as insoluble residue.

Note: for a one-word unambiguous definition of carbohydrate, use "saccharide".

All carbohydrates are saccharides, and all saccharides are carbohydrates.

Mono saccharides include glucose and fructose.

Di saccharides include sucrose (glucose + fructose) and lactose (glucose + galactose).

Oligosaccharides include starch and cellulose, as well as hemi celluloses.

All saccharides dissolve in acid detergent. Lignin is not a carbohydrate.

For decades ecologists had debated whether or not carbon:nitrogen ratio or lignin was a better predictor for nitrogen release from decomposing organic matter.

My 1995 paper in Nature blew it wide open.

It is still possible someone that will join the website who wants to discuss this kind of real world science as it applies to climate change.




IBdaMann wrote:
There's no reason an honest person can't learn what "climate change" means if he has forgotten how to use a dictionary.

There's no reason an honest person can't learn what lignin is, or learn about the sulfate reduction process.
19-04-2023 05:59
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Im a BM wrote:
There is a tiny chance that someone other than an Internet troll will read this.

Carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling are very important regarding climate change.

Polyphenols and lignin are very important regarding carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling.

My most famous scientific paper was published in the journal Nature, in 1995.

It has been cited in 765 different peer-reviewed scientific papers and textbooks.

It includes lignin research and proves that lignin is NOT the most important regulator of nitrogen cycling.

The paper: Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.
1995. Nature. Volume 377. Pages 227-229.

Quoting from Figure 2 - "...and lignin was measured by the acid detergent method (reference #30). Regressions of these parameters versus the ratio of DON:mineral nitrogen were as follows: Condensed tannins (r2 = 0.99, p = <0.001), total phenolics (r2 = 0.90, p = <0.001), C:N ratio (r2 = 0.76, p = <0.001), and lignin (not significant)."


In the pine litter samples studied, lignin ranged from 20-40%. But release of mineral nitrogen was not significantly correlated to lignin. However, it was highly significantly correlated to condensed tannin and total phenolic content.

Scientists in the real world who know what lignin is and study it took this very seriously.

It has been known for more than a century that lignin can form strong complexes with protein. These ligno protein complexes are very difficult for microorganisms to degrade. Release of mineral nitrogen from them is slow.

Lignin can also form strong complexes with carbohydrates. These lignin-carbohydrate complexes are a common component of cell walls, where all the lignin is found.

The acid detergent method separates all carbohydrates from lignin-carbohydrate complexes, dissolving the saccharide and leaving behind the lignin as insoluble residue.

Note: for a one-word unambiguous definition of carbohydrate, use "saccharide".

All carbohydrates are saccharides, and all saccharides are carbohydrates.

Mono saccharides include glucose and fructose.

Di saccharides include sucrose (glucose + fructose) and lactose (glucose + galactose).

Oligosaccharides include starch and cellulose, as well as hemi celluloses.

All saccharides dissolve in acid detergent. Lignin is not a carbohydrate.

For decades ecologists had debated whether or not carbon:nitrogen ratio or lignin was a better predictor for nitrogen release from decomposing organic matter.

My 1995 paper in Nature blew it wide open.

It is still possible someone that will join the website who wants to discuss this kind of real world science as it applies to climate change.




IBdaMann wrote:
There's no reason an honest person can't learn what "climate change" means if he has forgotten how to use a dictionary.

There's no reason an honest person can't learn what lignin is, or learn about the sulfate reduction process.


I doubt pine litter is very absorbing, worse than clay litter. Probably smells nice though. My cat has long, nappy fur, so the pine litter would probably be a mess. Clay litter was fine, since it works good on oil spills/leaks, but kind of sucks cleaning out of the litter box. The clumping litter isn't much more expensive, but worth it.
20-04-2023 02:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
And now for some more spam from BM.
Im a BM wrote:
There is a tiny chance that someone other than an Internet troll will read this.

So it won't be you, internet troll.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling are very important regarding climate change.

Define 'climate change'.
Im a BM wrote:
Polyphenols and lignin are very important regarding carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling.

There is no nitrogen in lignin or a polyphenol.
Im a BM wrote:
My most famous scientific paper was published in the journal Nature, in 1995.

Science isn't a paper nor a magazine nor a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
It has been cited in 765 different peer-reviewed scientific papers and textbooks.

Science is not a paper nor a textbook. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
It includes lignin research and proves that lignin is NOT the most important regulator of nitrogen cycling.

There is no nitrogen in lignin.
Im a BM wrote:
The paper: Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.
1995. Nature. Volume 377. Pages 227-229.
...deleted gobbledegook...

There is no nitrogen in a polyphenol.
Im a BM wrote:
Scientists in the real world who know what lignin is and study it took this very seriously.

You don't get to speak for everybody. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
It has been known for more than a century that lignin can form strong complexes with protein. These ligno protein complexes are very difficult for microorganisms to degrade. Release of mineral nitrogen from them is slow.

There is no nitrogen in lignin. Lignin isn't a protein.
Im a BM wrote:
Lignin can also form strong complexes with carbohydrates. These lignin-carbohydrate complexes are a common component of cell walls, where all the lignin is found.

Lignin itself is a carbohydrate.
Im a BM wrote:
The acid detergent method separates all carbohydrates from lignin-carbohydrate complexes, dissolving the saccharide and leaving behind the lignin as insoluble residue.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
Im a BM wrote:
Note: for a one-word unambiguous definition of carbohydrate, use "saccharide".

A saccharide is also a carbohydrate.
Im a BM wrote:
All carbohydrates are saccharides, and all saccharides are carbohydrates.

WRONG. Not all carbohydrates are a saccharide.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted buzzwords and gobbledegook...
It is still possible someone that will join the website who wants to discuss this kind of real world science as it applies to climate change.

There is no branch of science called 'climate change'. Define 'climate change.
Buzzword fallacies. True Scotsman fallacy. Redefinition fallacies. Discard of chemistry.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-04-2023 04:54
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
Into the Night wrote:
And now for some more spam from BM.
Im a BM wrote:
There is a tiny chance that someone other than an Internet troll will read this.

So it won't be you, internet troll.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling are very important regarding climate change.

Define 'climate change'.



We need CO2 to support the ozone layer. I am really disappointed in you Isn't Not a First Nation, you know better than this.
20-04-2023 13:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
There is a tiny chance that someone other than an Internet troll will read this.

Carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling are very important regarding climate change.

Polyphenols and lignin are very important regarding carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling.

My most famous scientific paper was published in the journal Nature, in 1995.

It has been cited in 765 different peer-reviewed scientific papers and textbooks.

It includes lignin research and proves that lignin is NOT the most important regulator of nitrogen cycling.

The paper: Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.
1995. Nature. Volume 377. Pages 227-229.

Quoting from Figure 2 - "...and lignin was measured by the acid detergent method (reference #30). Regressions of these parameters versus the ratio of DON:mineral nitrogen were as follows: Condensed tannins (r2 = 0.99, p = <0.001), total phenolics (r2 = 0.90, p = <0.001), C:N ratio (r2 = 0.76, p = <0.001), and lignin (not significant)."


In the pine litter samples studied, lignin ranged from 20-40%. But release of mineral nitrogen was not significantly correlated to lignin. However, it was highly significantly correlated to condensed tannin and total phenolic content.

Scientists in the real world who know what lignin is and study it took this very seriously.

It has been known for more than a century that lignin can form strong complexes with protein. These ligno protein complexes are very difficult for microorganisms to degrade. Release of mineral nitrogen from them is slow.

Lignin can also form strong complexes with carbohydrates. These lignin-carbohydrate complexes are a common component of cell walls, where all the lignin is found.

The acid detergent method separates all carbohydrates from lignin-carbohydrate complexes, dissolving the saccharide and leaving behind the lignin as insoluble residue.

Note: for a one-word unambiguous definition of carbohydrate, use "saccharide".

All carbohydrates are saccharides, and all saccharides are carbohydrates.

Mono saccharides include glucose and fructose.

Di saccharides include sucrose (glucose + fructose) and lactose (glucose + galactose).

Oligosaccharides include starch and cellulose, as well as hemi celluloses.

All saccharides dissolve in acid detergent. Lignin is not a carbohydrate.

For decades ecologists had debated whether or not carbon:nitrogen ratio or lignin was a better predictor for nitrogen release from decomposing organic matter.

My 1995 paper in Nature blew it wide open.

It is still possible someone that will join the website who wants to discuss this kind of real world science as it applies to climate change.




IBdaMann wrote:
There's no reason an honest person can't learn what "climate change" means if he has forgotten how to use a dictionary.

There's no reason an honest person can't learn what lignin is, or learn about the sulfate reduction process.


I doubt pine litter is very absorbing, worse than clay litter.

Pine litter is toxic to many animals. It is also very absorbent, which is the problem. It retains moisture in the litter, causing the formation of ammonia. It is not recommended as litter for either chickens or rabbits for this reason.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Probably smells nice though.

At first, but quickly develops big problems with ammonia formation. It is also toxic to many animals, like I said.
HarveyH55 wrote:
My cat has long, nappy fur, so the pine litter would probably be a mess.

That it would. It would stick to the poor cat like boles.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Clay litter was fine, since it works good on oil spills/leaks,

It is very effective for that. Pine shavings also work, with the added benefit that you can burn them afterwards along with any oil they soaked up. More expensive though. Also, you must put a weight down on the shavings so they make good contact with the oil. In the end it's easier to just use the clay/sand litter.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-04-2023 13:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
And now for some more spam from BM.
Im a BM wrote:
There is a tiny chance that someone other than an Internet troll will read this.

So it won't be you, internet troll.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling are very important regarding climate change.

Define 'climate change'.



We need CO2 to support the ozone layer. I am really disappointed in you Isn't Not a First Nation, you know better than this.

And now for something completely random from James!

Ozone is not made up of CO2.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: "Plant cell walls don't contain lignin" - more parrot poop20-04-2023 21:25
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
Into the Night wrote:.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
.

Plant cell walls don't contain lignin.
.

You lock yourself into your own paradoxes. They are YOUR problem. Only YOU can do something about them.
[quote].



This thread got splattered with parrot poop as soon as it started, a year ago.

These absurd, anti scientific claims never stop.

"Plant cell walls don't contain lignin"

Truly an extraordinary claim that defies (or simply denies) what has been asserted in scientific textbooks for more than 100 years.

If someone can show that lignin is a carbohydrate, they will have to rewrite all the organic chemistry textbooks. It would be worth a Nobel Prize.

If someone can show that plant cell walls don't contain lignin, they will have to rewrite all the biology and botany textbooks.

Then there will be the mystery of where is the lignin, if it is not in cell walls.

What OTHER part of the plant contains lignin? I've never heard such a thing.

But this would just be another invitation for more parrot poop.

More made up shit. More absurd anti scientific assertions.

More stupid word games.

More of what makes this website so unattractive to all but a handful of trolls.

To his credit, Parrot Boy didn't go back to his first resort.

He didn't just call me a "liar" this time. Maybe that counts as progress.

But he made no attempt to address the reality of my published (and widely cited) research about lignin in the real world. Which is ONLY found in cell walls.

Nobody ever claimed that lignin or polyphenols contain nitrogen, dumbas.. dumb as a scientifically illiterate Internet troll.
21-04-2023 01:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
.

Plant cell walls don't contain lignin.
.

You lock yourself into your own paradoxes. They are YOUR problem. Only YOU can do something about them.
.



This thread got splattered with parrot poop as soon as it started, a year ago.

These absurd, anti scientific claims never stop.

"Plant cell walls don't contain lignin"

Truly an extraordinary claim that defies (or simply denies) what has been asserted in scientific textbooks for more than 100 years.

You don't get to quote every book.
Science is not textbooks.
Im a BM wrote:
If someone can show that lignin is a carbohydrate, they will have to rewrite all the organic chemistry textbooks. It would be worth a Nobel Prize.

You don't get to quote every book. Chemistry is not textbooks. Lignin is a carbohydrate. No Nobel prize needed. Science is not a prize.
Im a BM wrote:
If someone can show that plant cell walls don't contain lignin, they will have to rewrite all the biology and botany textbooks.

You don't get to quote every book. Lignin is not in cell walls.
Im a BM wrote:
Then there will be the mystery of where is the lignin, if it is not in cell walls.

No mystery. Most papermakers and a lot of woodworkers know what lignin is and what it does.
Im a BM wrote:
What OTHER part of the plant contains lignin? I've never heard such a thing.

Guess you're pretty clueless then.
Im a BM wrote:
But this would just be another invitation for more parrot poop.

More made up shit. More absurd anti scientific assertions.

More stupid word games.

More of what makes this website so unattractive to all but a handful of trolls.

To his credit, Parrot Boy didn't go back to his first resort.

He didn't just call me a "liar" this time. Maybe that counts as progress.

But he made no attempt to address the reality of my published (and widely cited) research about lignin in the real world. Which is ONLY found in cell walls.

Lignin is not in cell walls.
Im a BM wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that lignin or polyphenols contain nitrogen, dumbas.. dumb as a scientifically illiterate Internet troll.

You did. Don't try to deny your own posts.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: better lignin reference16-05-2023 09:27
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
]Into the Night wrote:.[/quote]
Lignin is a carbohydrate.
.

Plant cell walls don't contain lignin.
[quote].


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 pages long, it includes extensive discussion about lignin.

And it is highly relevant to the topic of this thread.
RE: maximizing carbon sequestration in farm soils16-05-2023 09:36
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
Among the papers that cited the 1998 Biogeochemistry paper, this is one of the ones I am most proud to have influenced.

It is highly relevant to the thread topic.

Claire Chenu et al. 2019. Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research.
Volume 188 Pages 41-52.

This paper has been cited in 433 different peer-reviewed papers, etc., and will likely pick up a whole lot more in the next few years.

One day someone might view this who is interested in this topic.
16-05-2023 21:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14545)
Im a BM wrote:
Among the papers that cited the 1998 Biogeochemistry paper, this is one of the ones I am most proud to have influenced.

It is highly relevant to the thread topic.

Claire Chenu et al. 2019. Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research.
Volume 188 Pages 41-52.

This paper has been cited in 433 different peer-reviewed papers, etc., and will likely pick up a whole lot more in the next few years.

One day someone might view this who is interested in this topic.

Will this paper answer the question of whether or not carbon should be sequestered and why?
17-05-2023 00:32
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Im a BM wrote:
Among the papers that cited the 1998 Biogeochemistry paper, this is one of the ones I am most proud to have influenced.

It is highly relevant to the thread topic.

Claire Chenu et al. 2019. Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research.
Volume 188 Pages 41-52.

This paper has been cited in 433 different peer-reviewed papers, etc., and will likely pick up a whole lot more in the next few years.

One day someone might view this who is interested in this topic.


So, the breakthrough discovery is that by plowing/turning organic matter into the farm fields, it sort of fertilizes the soil for the next year's crop? Can't believe nobody thought of this centuries ago...
RE: centuries ago, yes, but without biogeochemical analysis17-05-2023 08:40
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Among the papers that cited the 1998 Biogeochemistry paper, this is one of the ones I am most proud to have influenced.

It is highly relevant to the thread topic.

Claire Chenu et al. 2019. Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research.
Volume 188 Pages 41-52.

This paper has been cited in 433 different peer-reviewed papers, etc., and will likely pick up a whole lot more in the next few years.

One day someone might view this who is interested in this topic.


So, the breakthrough discovery is that by plowing/turning organic matter into the farm fields, it sort of fertilizes the soil for the next year's crop? Can't believe nobody thought of this centuries ago...



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

It is a valid point that centuries ago, indeed thousands of years ago, humans had engineered sustainable agriculture methods that maintained high levels of soil organic matter.

Some farming methods, such as those that create plaggen sods, substantially increased soil organic matter content, compared to the natural ecosystem that previously occupied the site.

But these are not "breakthrough discoveries", and they are not what this research was about.

As the title suggests, there are "knowledge gaps" and "innovations" discussed.

Say what you want about carbon dioxide, but who could be opposed to improving soil fertility?

My own research was cited extensively in the "knowledge gap" section. Important new questions that nobody thought to ask before. Prevailing assumptions that turned out to be wrong, requiring new approaches to research.

Peasant agricultural science had already reached a high level of sophistication before the pyramids were built. But they didn't know much about biogeochemistry. Or mycorrhizal fungi.

HarveyH55, I suspect that you are not really interested in a more complete reply than this.
17-05-2023 10:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14545)
HarveyH55 wrote:So, the breakthrough discovery is that by plowing/turning organic matter into the farm fields, it sort of fertilizes the soil for the next year's crop? Can't believe nobody thought of this centuries ago...

Awesome! You are in rare form. This was excellent!
17-05-2023 22:56
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
Im a BM wrote:

Say what you want about carbon dioxide, but who could be opposed to improving soil fertility?



Research I'm pursuing; https://climate-cycling.com/ What the IPCC is ignoring is that research should be directed towards creating traps which can remove ozone depleting substances from the stratosphere. If not then one day there won't be an ozone layer and no one will be around to care.
18-05-2023 01:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
James_ wrote:
Im a BM wrote:

Say what you want about carbon dioxide, but who could be opposed to improving soil fertility?



Research I'm pursuing; https://climate-cycling.com/ What the IPCC is ignoring is that research should be directed towards creating traps which can remove ozone depleting substances from the stratosphere. If not then one day there won't be an ozone layer and no one will be around to care.

It is not possible to destroy the ozone layer.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: brand new paper of interest18-05-2023 09:00
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
This paper just came out two days ago.

Sven Korz et al. 2023. Effect of grape pomace varieties and soil characteristics on the leaching potential of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols. Soil Systems. Volume 7(2) page 49-

Quite relevant to the thread topic.

Using different varieties of grape pomace as fertilizer, they tracked the movement of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols.

Enriching soil organic carbon content and providing nitrogen fertilizer to the crop.

They cited yours truly because my discovery enabled them to make sense of the results.

They found that hydrolysable tannins (polyphenols) penetrated to more than 10 cm depth into the top soil.

While the grape pomace added more organic nitrogen to the soil, the quantity of mineral nitrogen (ammonium or nitrate) leaching out of that zone DECREASED.

They concluded that, as per my hypothesis, polyphenols bound up protein that was already in the soil, reducing the ability of microorganisms to mineralize it.

The point of all the bragging is in case a viewer who has genuine interest in the thread topic wants to discuss it further, they will know that the active members of this website are not EXCLUSIVELY comprised of scientifically illiterate trolls.

Organic nitrogen, versus mineral nitrogen is an important concept.

Organic nitrogen is bound to carbon atoms. Not just any carbon atoms.

Organic nitrogen is bound to atoms of organic carbon.

Ammonium carbonate, for example, is nitrogen bound to carbon. But that carbon is inorganic. Fully oxidized. Ammonium carbonate is mineral nitrogen.

Urea H2N-C=O-NH2, Doesn't look clear here, but it is two amino groups bound to a carbonyl carbon. Carbonyl carbon is double bonded to oxygen. Kind of a gray area in terms of not being COMPLETELY oxidized carbon, but urea is not organic nitrogen.

Proteins and amino acids are organic forms of nitrogen.

The term "organic carbon" is clearly defined in any organic chemistry textbook.

Inorganic carbon is fully oxidized forms of carbon - carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion.

Organic carbon is the thousands of OTHER carbon compounds that are in chemically reduced form.

Organic carbon becomes inorganic carbon as soon as it oxidizes.

Inorganic carbon becomes organic carbon as soon as it gets reduced. Such as during photosynthesis.
18-05-2023 09:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14545)
Im a BM wrote:This paper just came out two days ago.

Sven Korz et al. 2023. Effect of grape pomace varieties and soil characteristics on the leaching potential of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols. Soil Systems. Volume 7(2) page 49-

Quite relevant to the thread topic.

Attached file:
soilsystems-07-000491-compressed.pdf
RE: new paper connecting it to climate change18-05-2023 11:28
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
Another publication came out earlier this year, citing yours truly, and making the connection between plant-litter-soil interactions and climate change.

U. Schickhoff et al. 2023. The treeline ecotone in Rolwaling Himal, Nepal: Pattern-process relationships and treeline shift potential. IN Singh, S.P. et al. (eds) Ecology of Himalayan Treeline Ecotone. pages 95-145.


This is about the fact that the Himalayan treeline is moving uphill to higher altitude, and efforts to identify variables to better predict future changes.

Global warming is occurring more rapidly at the highest latitudes and the highest altitudes.

"Warming trends across Nepal have increased to 0.2 degrees C per decade"

This rate is a bit higher than the global average.

"The treeline position in Rowling is lagging behind climate changes"

Soils have already warmed enough that should permit tree growth at much higher altitude than before. The treeline has already moved to higher altitude, but not as rapidly as soil temperatures would predict.

This is most notable where rhododendron thickets ("krummholz") occur above the treeline.

And then it gets back to vegetation chemistry and the influence of polyphenols on the cycling of carbon and nitrogen, as well as the thermal insulation properties of the accumulated rhododendron litter layer.

The trees are going to have to wait a while longer before they can move on up into these areas where rhododendron forms thick insulating litter layers and nitrogen is tied up in forms for which their ericoid mycorrhizal fungi have a competitive acquisition advantage.
18-05-2023 16:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14545)
Im a BM wrote:Another publication came out earlier this year, citing yours truly, and making the connection between plant-litter-soil interactions and climate change.

U. Schickhoff et al. 2023. The treeline ecotone in Rolwaling Himal, Nepal: Pattern-process relationships and treeline shift potential. IN Singh, S.P. et al. (eds) Ecology of Himalayan Treeline Ecotone. pages 95-145.

I cannot find this PDF. I'll attach it if I can find it.

Meanwhile, here's a 2014 document that covers the same material.

Im a BM wrote:This is about the fact that the Himalayan treeline is moving uphill to higher altitude, and efforts to identify variables to better predict future changes.

My immediate assumptions are those of skepticism, as any scientist should have. When someone tells me that a treeline is somehow moving, my assumption is that the ground/mountain/terrain where they are choosing to "notice a climbing treeline" is actually sinking/lowering relative to other land around it, and that if they were to pay attention to where the ground/mountain/terrain is actually rising, the treeline would appear to be running downhill, totally undercutting the narrative being put forward to compete for research grants. I don't know that this is the case. It is my assumption until said researchers convince me that the treeline they are observing is comprehensive for the area addressed, in this case "The Himalayas." As I read the above linked document, the area covered by the Himalayas is detailed, but the treeline studied is not. I want to see maps of the areas studied, and surveying studies showing that the terrain in the maps is not sinking.

But that's just me.

If all of my requirements were met and "sinking/lowering" is ruled out, I would then expect to see a heavy/exhaustive environmental study examining changing/increased winds that are (potentially) kicking up CO2 or some other factors that are carrying higher concentrations of CO2 to higher elevations. Raising the level of the plant food will raise ceiling for the plants and will raise the treeline.

If a rising treeline is verified and both "ground sinking" and "raised CO2 elevation" are properly ruled out, then I would entertain other environmental possibilities, e.g. soil changes ... but not before.

But that's just me.
18-05-2023 23:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
This paper just came out two days ago.

Sven Korz et al. 2023. Effect of grape pomace varieties and soil characteristics on the leaching potential of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols. Soil Systems. Volume 7(2) page 49-

Quite relevant to the thread topic.

Using different varieties of grape pomace as fertilizer, they tracked the movement of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols.

Enriching soil organic carbon content and providing nitrogen fertilizer to the crop.

They cited yours truly because my discovery enabled them to make sense of the results.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
They found that hydrolysable tannins (polyphenols) penetrated to more than 10 cm depth into the top soil.

While the grape pomace added more organic nitrogen to the soil, the quantity of mineral nitrogen (ammonium or nitrate) leaching out of that zone DECREASED.

They concluded that, as per my hypothesis, polyphenols bound up protein that was already in the soil, reducing the ability of microorganisms to mineralize it.

The point of all the bragging is in case a viewer who has genuine interest in the thread topic wants to discuss it further, they will know that the active members of this website are not EXCLUSIVELY comprised of scientifically illiterate trolls.

This is correct. Unfortunately, you happen to be very illiterate.
Im a BM wrote:
Organic nitrogen, versus mineral nitrogen is an important concept.

There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Organic nitrogen is bound to carbon atoms. Not just any carbon atoms.
Organic nitrogen is bound to atoms of organic carbon.

There is no such thing as an 'organic carbon atom'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Ammonium carbonate, for example, is nitrogen bound to carbon. But that carbon is inorganic. Fully oxidized. Ammonium carbonate is mineral nitrogen.

Nitrogen is not a mineral. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Urea H2N-C=O-NH2, Doesn't look clear here, but it is two amino groups bound to a carbonyl carbon. Carbonyl carbon is double bonded to oxygen. Kind of a gray area in terms of not being COMPLETELY oxidized carbon, but urea is not organic nitrogen.

There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Proteins and amino acids are organic forms of nitrogen.

There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
The term "organic carbon" is clearly defined in any organic chemistry textbook.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'. Buzzword fallacy. Void reference fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Inorganic carbon is fully oxidized forms of carbon - carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide, any bicarbonate, or any carbonate.
Im a BM wrote:
Organic carbon is the thousands of OTHER carbon compounds that are in chemically reduced form.

Carbon is not a compound.
Im a BM wrote:
Organic carbon becomes inorganic carbon as soon as it oxidizes.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Inorganic carbon becomes organic carbon as soon as it gets reduced. Such as during photosynthesis.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'. Buzzword fallacy.

Your entire post is just jabberwocky.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-05-2023 23:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
Another publication came out earlier this year, citing yours truly, and making the connection between plant-litter-soil interactions and climate change.

U. Schickhoff et al. 2023. The treeline ecotone in Rolwaling Himal, Nepal: Pattern-process relationships and treeline shift potential. IN Singh, S.P. et al. (eds) Ecology of Himalayan Treeline Ecotone. pages 95-145.

People will quote any idiots these days.
Im a BM wrote:
This is about the fact that the Himalayan treeline is moving uphill to higher altitude, and efforts to identify variables to better predict future changes.

Trees don't grow in a line, not even in the Himalayas.
Im a BM wrote:
Global warming is occurring more rapidly at the highest latitudes and the highest altitudes.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. It is not possible to slow or trap heat or light.
Im a BM wrote:
"Warming trends across Nepal have increased to 0.2 degrees C per decade"

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Nepal.
Im a BM wrote:
This rate is a bit higher than the global average.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Im a BM wrote:
"The treeline position in Rowling is lagging behind climate changes"

I assume you mean 'global warming', since climate cannot change. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
Im a BM wrote:
Soils have already warmed enough that should permit tree growth at much higher altitude than before. The treeline has already moved to higher altitude, but not as rapidly as soil temperatures would predict.

It is not possible to measure the soil temperature of Nepal. Trees don't grow in a line.
Im a BM wrote:
This is most notable where rhododendron thickets ("krummholz") occur above the treeline.

And then it gets back to vegetation chemistry and the influence of polyphenols on the cycling of carbon and nitrogen, as well as the thermal insulation properties of the accumulated rhododendron litter layer.

Thermal insulators are not a source of energy. They do not warm anything. Putting a coat on a rock does not warm the rock.
Im a BM wrote:
The trees are going to have to wait a while longer before they can move on up into these areas where rhododendron forms thick insulating litter layers and nitrogen is tied up in forms for which their ericoid mycorrhizal fungi have a competitive acquisition advantage.

Jabberwocky in an effort to create energy out of nothing.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of Nepal.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 18-05-2023 23:53
RE: optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands19-05-2023 08:54
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
Another good reference for the thread topic.

Needless to say, they acknowledge my scientific discoveries with a citation.

And that isn't to taunt the trolls.

It is in the hope that this will be taken seriously by someone who is interested in the topic. And perhaps would never join the discussion, or even read any of the other posts, without knowing that there is a participant who doesn't have to just make shit up about science.

It is an excellent review article of many different investigations, in the highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journal called Agronomy. (2021)


Alexandra Tiefenbacher et al. 2021. Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy. Volume 11(5) Pages 882-

The paper speaks for itself. The title speaks for itself.

Someone who takes genuine interest in the topic indicated by the thread title would want to read this. Whether they join the discussion or not.

Others who have no genuine interest in the thread topic are allowed to just give it the silent treatment. It is okay to ignore this thread.
19-05-2023 09:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14545)
Im a BM wrote:Needless to say, they acknowledge my scientific discoveries with a citation.

132. Northup, R.R.; Dahlgren, R.A.; McColl, J.G. Polyphenols as Regulators of Plant-Litter-Soil Interactions in Northern California's
Pygmy Forest: A Positive Feedback? Biogeochemistry 1998, 42, 189–220, doi:10.1023/A:1005991908504.



Im a BM wrote:Alexandra Tiefenbacher et al. 2021. Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy. Volume 11(5) Pages 882-

The paper speaks for itself. The title speaks for itself.

At no point is any explanation offered as to why any rational adult would want to sequester carbon in croplands in the first place. Don't you think that should have been included?
Attached file:
agronomy-11-00882.pdf
RE: because crops are needed to feed people19-05-2023 11:05
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Needless to say, they acknowledge my scientific discoveries with a citation.

132. Northup, R.R.; Dahlgren, R.A.; McColl, J.G. Polyphenols as Regulators of Plant-Litter-Soil Interactions in Northern California's
Pygmy Forest: A Positive Feedback? Biogeochemistry 1998, 42, 189–220, doi:10.1023/A:1005991908504.



Im a BM wrote:Alexandra Tiefenbacher et al. 2021. Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy. Volume 11(5) Pages 882-

The paper speaks for itself. The title speaks for itself.

At no point is any explanation offered as to why any rational adult would want to sequester carbon in croplands in the first place. Don't you think that should have been included?




The excellent review in the 2021 agronomy paper begins with a detailed explanation for why every rational adult should want to sequester carbon in croplands.

Perhaps most compelling is the fact that we depend on soil fertility to support productive crop growth in order to feed humanity.

Soil organic matter is crucial for soil productivity.

No word games can escape the fact that unless new organic carbon is sequestered into the soil at least as fast as old organic carbon in the soil decomposes to carbon dioxide, there will be loss of soil fertility and potential productivity. Only an irrational child would fail to comprehend the importance.
19-05-2023 17:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14545)
Im a BM wrote:No word games can escape the fact that unless new organic carbon is sequestered into the soil at least as fast as old organic carbon in the soil decomposes to carbon dioxide, there will be loss of soil fertility and potential productivity.

Actually, the best argument for this is a clear definition of terms. If I had been involved in the editing of the paper, I would have completely eliminated the word "sequestration" which, without any other explanation, gives the impression that CO2 is being pulled from the soil, not infused into it.

That makes all the difference. I'm a big fan of clarity.
19-05-2023 23:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Needless to say, they acknowledge my scientific discoveries with a citation.

132. Northup, R.R.; Dahlgren, R.A.; McColl, J.G. Polyphenols as Regulators of Plant-Litter-Soil Interactions in Northern California's
Pygmy Forest: A Positive Feedback? Biogeochemistry 1998, 42, 189–220, doi:10.1023/A:1005991908504.



Im a BM wrote:Alexandra Tiefenbacher et al. 2021. Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy. Volume 11(5) Pages 882-

The paper speaks for itself. The title speaks for itself.

At no point is any explanation offered as to why any rational adult would want to sequester carbon in croplands in the first place. Don't you think that should have been included?




The excellent review in the 2021 agronomy paper begins with a detailed explanation for why every rational adult should want to sequester carbon in croplands.

Perhaps most compelling is the fact that we depend on soil fertility to support productive crop growth in order to feed humanity.

Soil organic matter is crucial for soil productivity.

No word games can escape the fact that unless new organic carbon is sequestered into the soil at least as fast as old organic carbon in the soil decomposes to carbon dioxide, there will be loss of soil fertility and potential productivity. Only an irrational child would fail to comprehend the importance.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'. Carbon is an element.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: "Organic carbon analyzer" - I bet you sell them21-05-2023 21:57
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Needless to say, they acknowledge my scientific discoveries with a citation.

132. Northup, R.R.; Dahlgren, R.A.; McColl, J.G. Polyphenols as Regulators of Plant-Litter-Soil Interactions in Northern California's
Pygmy Forest: A Positive Feedback? Biogeochemistry 1998, 42, 189–220, doi:10.1023/A:1005991908504.



Im a BM wrote:Alexandra Tiefenbacher et al. 2021. Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy. Volume 11(5) Pages 882-

The paper speaks for itself. The title speaks for itself.

At no point is any explanation offered as to why any rational adult would want to sequester carbon in croplands in the first place. Don't you think that should have been included?




The excellent review in the 2021 agronomy paper begins with a detailed explanation for why every rational adult should want to sequester carbon in croplands.

Perhaps most compelling is the fact that we depend on soil fertility to support productive crop growth in order to feed humanity.

Soil organic matter is crucial for soil productivity.

No word games can escape the fact that unless new organic carbon is sequestered into the soil at least as fast as old organic carbon in the soil decomposes to carbon dioxide, there will be loss of soil fertility and potential productivity. Only an irrational child would fail to comprehend the importance.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'. Carbon is an element.

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

Those who refuse to believe organic chemistry textbooks might want to review the list of scientific instruments being sold.

"Organic carbon analyzer"

"Inorganic carbon analyzer"

If your company is any good, they probably offer multiple models of these things.

Of course carbon is an element.

And coal is carbon.

That does not mean that coal is an element.
RE: "..improves soil organic carbon.." - in forests rather than cropland22-05-2023 02:29
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year.

Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300.

Yeah, they cited me.

Apparently, the authors, reviewers, and publishers all agreed that it made sense to use the term "organic carbon" in the title. Maybe organic carbon really does exist, despite the fact that "carbon is an element."

This paper is about forest management, not croplands. As per the thread title, these are agroecosystems.

This paper is not based on climate change or concern about atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

It is about soil productivity and its dependence on organic carbon.

It is about preventing loss of soil organic carbon in order to avoid loss of loss of forest productivity.
22-05-2023 07:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14545)
Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year.

Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300.

Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate?

Im a BM wrote:
(Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984).
Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's
pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220.

Yeah, they cited me.

Attached file:
keeping_thinning-derived_deadwood_logs_on_forest_f.pdf
RE: podzols are very infertile soils22-05-2023 08:47
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year.

Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300.

Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate?

Im a BM wrote:
(Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984).
Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's
pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220.

Yeah, they cited me.


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

The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils.

In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce.

Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists.

Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer.

Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon.

By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil.
23-05-2023 00:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year.

Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300.

Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate?

Im a BM wrote:
(Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984).
Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's
pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220.

Yeah, they cited me.


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

The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils.

In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce.

Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists.

Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer.

Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon.

By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil.


Did you know that some of the poorest soils are in the tropical rain forests? It's all up in the trees and other vegetation.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 23-05-2023 00:20
RE: Debunking common misconceptions about rain forest soils24-05-2023 20:37
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year.

Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300.

Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate?

Im a BM wrote:
(Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984).
Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's
pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220.

Yeah, they cited me.


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

The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils.

In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce.

Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists.

Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer.

Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon.

By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil.


Did you know that some of the poorest soils are in the tropical rain forests? It's all up in the trees and other vegetation.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'.


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

Most people are not soil scientists, and misconceptions about rain forest soil are common.

"It's all up in the trees and other vegetation".

Nope. Even in the most nutrient poor soils in the world, which happen to be Podzols, also known as Spodosols, there are far fewer nutrients contained in the above ground biomass compared to the dead organic matter in the soil.


"Nutrients" being forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, etc., that plants can use.

The more common misconception is that tropical rain forest soils are always very infertile.

Some of the most fertile soils in the world can be found under tropical rain forests.

Andisols, formed from young volcanic parent material, are highly fertile. Rain forests in Rwanda growing on deposits of volcanic ash, volcanic mud flows, or lava flows, have highly fertile andisol soils. They can be slashed and burned for centuries and come back with productive harvests every time.

Entisols are very young soils. Too young to have developed much. And sometimes extremely fertile. In the Ganges delta, eroded top soil from the Himalayas washes down and deposits as new islands. If left alone, they support rain forests with very highly fertile soil. Usually farmers get there first.

But Podzols, or Spodosols, are extremely infertile soils found under some rain forests. "Acid white sands" are the most extreme.

Next post will reference my earliest pub (1994) which gets into a lot of detail on acid white sand rain forest soils, and their California counterpart, an ancient Spodosol (Podzol) on the coast with what is, literally, the world's most infertile soil.

Even there, the above ground biomass contains less than 15% of the nutrients found in the ecosystem.
25-05-2023 06:22
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year.

Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300.

Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate?

Im a BM wrote:
(Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984).
Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's
pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220.

Yeah, they cited me.


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

The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils.

In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce.

Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists.

Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer.

Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon.

By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil.


Did you know that some of the poorest soils are in the tropical rain forests? It's all up in the trees and other vegetation.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'.


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

Most people are not soil scientists, and misconceptions about rain forest soil are common.

"It's all up in the trees and other vegetation".

Nope. Even in the most nutrient poor soils in the world, which happen to be Podzols, also known as Spodosols, there are far fewer nutrients contained in the above ground biomass compared to the dead organic matter in the soil.


"Nutrients" being forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, etc., that plants can use.

The more common misconception is that tropical rain forest soils are always very infertile.

Some of the most fertile soils in the world can be found under tropical rain forests.

Andisols, formed from young volcanic parent material, are highly fertile. Rain forests in Rwanda growing on deposits of volcanic ash, volcanic mud flows, or lava flows, have highly fertile andisol soils. They can be slashed and burned for centuries and come back with productive harvests every time.

Entisols are very young soils. Too young to have developed much. And sometimes extremely fertile. In the Ganges delta, eroded top soil from the Himalayas washes down and deposits as new islands. If left alone, they support rain forests with very highly fertile soil. Usually farmers get there first.

But Podzols, or Spodosols, are extremely infertile soils found under some rain forests. "Acid white sands" are the most extreme.

Next post will reference my earliest pub (1994) which gets into a lot of detail on acid white sand rain forest soils, and their California counterpart, an ancient Spodosol (Podzol) on the coast with what is, literally, the world's most infertile soil.

Even there, the above ground biomass contains less than 15% of the nutrients found in the ecosystem.


Ever consider that rocks rising are like a temperate climate? Water sinks while rocks with their minerals rise. And then we're back to monkeys.
26-05-2023 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year.

Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300.

Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate?

Im a BM wrote:
(Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984).
Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's
pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220.

Yeah, they cited me.


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

The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils.

In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce.

Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists.

Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer.

Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon.

By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil.


Did you know that some of the poorest soils are in the tropical rain forests? It's all up in the trees and other vegetation.

There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'.


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

Most people are not soil scientists, and misconceptions about rain forest soil are common.

"It's all up in the trees and other vegetation".

Nope. Even in the most nutrient poor soils in the world, which happen to be Podzols, also known as Spodosols, there are far fewer nutrients contained in the above ground biomass compared to the dead organic matter in the soil.


"Nutrients" being forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, etc., that plants can use.

The more common misconception is that tropical rain forest soils are always very infertile.

Some of the most fertile soils in the world can be found under tropical rain forests.

Andisols, formed from young volcanic parent material, are highly fertile. Rain forests in Rwanda growing on deposits of volcanic ash, volcanic mud flows, or lava flows, have highly fertile andisol soils. They can be slashed and burned for centuries and come back with productive harvests every time.

Entisols are very young soils. Too young to have developed much. And sometimes extremely fertile. In the Ganges delta, eroded top soil from the Himalayas washes down and deposits as new islands. If left alone, they support rain forests with very highly fertile soil. Usually farmers get there first.

But Podzols, or Spodosols, are extremely infertile soils found under some rain forests. "Acid white sands" are the most extreme.

Next post will reference my earliest pub (1994) which gets into a lot of detail on acid white sand rain forest soils, and their California counterpart, an ancient Spodosol (Podzol) on the coast with what is, literally, the world's most infertile soil.

Even there, the above ground biomass contains less than 15% of the nutrients found in the ecosystem.

You're just making shit up again. Soil in tropical rain forests is very poor.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: the most infertile soil in the world26-05-2023 22:14
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(793)
Soil science is a major underlying theme in discussion of carbon sequestration.

My first significant paper about these things was published in 1995.


(Yours truly et al). 1995. Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient; A new interpretation. Plant and Soil. Volume 171, pages 255-262.


These coastal terraces on have soils ranging from pH 5 on the youngest and most fertile terrace to pH 3 on the oldest and least fertile terrace.

The pygmy forest grows on ancient soils (ranging from 300000 to 500000 years of soil development) that are EXTREMELY infertile and strongly acidic.

It was an ideal opportunity to investigate the mechanisms that enable oligotrophic ecosystems to sustain productivity over geologic time, recycling a tiny pool of nutrients under conditions of high potential leaching loss.

It turns out that the same mechanisms that prevent nutrient loss also prevent loss of soil organic carbon.

The "gibber babble" will be meaningless to scientifically illiterate trolls.

Sooner or later, someone will join the discussion who understands actual science and the "gibber babble" used to communicate it.

It may be of historic interest to have a reference for what was literally the first paper published on this particular topic - chemical adaptations to extreme soil conditions.

The trolls may continue to insist that I don't even know what science is. That's okay. Other scientists take my work pretty seriously.

Maybe the next post should get into some of the papers that CITED this one, coming out after 1995, because they continue right up to this year.

And since a fundamental requirement of the scientific method is that the results must be "reproducible", it is an important reality test after a discovery is published to see if other scientists can confirm it.

In fact, obvious proof that a "discovery" was NOT valid is if nobody ever bothers to cite it because it wasn't reproducible. Of if the only citations are to refute it.

It's okay if I get nothing but insults down here in the rabbit hole. I get plenty of praise from real scientists in the real world.
26-05-2023 22:30
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
Im a BM wrote:
Soil science is a major underlying theme in discussion of carbon sequestration.

My first significant paper about these things was published in 1995.


(Yours truly et al). 1995. Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient; A new interpretation. Plant and Soil. Volume 171, pages 255-262.


These coastal terraces on have soils ranging from pH 5 on the youngest and most fertile terrace to pH 3 on the oldest and least fertile terrace.

The pygmy forest grows on ancient soils (ranging from 300000 to 500000 years of soil development) that are EXTREMELY infertile and strongly acidic.

It was an ideal opportunity to investigate the mechanisms that enable oligotrophic ecosystems to sustain productivity over geologic time, recycling a tiny pool of nutrients under conditions of high potential leaching loss.

It turns out that the same mechanisms that prevent nutrient loss also prevent loss of soil organic carbon.

The "gibber babble" will be meaningless to scientifically illiterate trolls.

Sooner or later, someone will join the discussion who understands actual science and the "gibber babble" used to communicate it.

It may be of historic interest to have a reference for what was literally the first paper published on this particular topic - chemical adaptations to extreme soil conditions.

The trolls may continue to insist that I don't even know what science is. That's okay. Other scientists take my work pretty seriously.

Maybe the next post should get into some of the papers that CITED this one, coming out after 1995, because they continue right up to this year.

And since a fundamental requirement of the scientific method is that the results must be "reproducible", it is an important reality test after a discovery is published to see if other scientists can confirm it.

In fact, obvious proof that a "discovery" was NOT valid is if nobody ever bothers to cite it because it wasn't reproducible. Of if the only citations are to refute it.

It's okay if I get nothing but insults down here in the rabbit hole. I get plenty of praise from real scientists in the real world.


So you went from being published in the journal of nature to the ass-hole of the internet all in one lifetime


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
27-05-2023 01:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
Soil science is a major underlying theme in discussion of carbon sequestration.
...deleted lengthy jabberwocky...


Why are you so scared of carbon dioxide?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 27-05-2023 01:15
27-05-2023 06:51
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
Im a BM wrote:
Soil science is a major underlying theme in discussion of carbon sequestration.

My first significant paper about these things was published in 1995.


(Yours truly et al). 1995. Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient; A new interpretation. Plant and Soil. Volume 171, pages 255-262.


These coastal terraces on have soils ranging from pH 5 on the youngest and most fertile terrace to pH 3 on the oldest and least fertile terrace.

The pygmy forest grows on ancient soils (ranging from 300000 to 500000 years of soil development) that are EXTREMELY infertile and strongly acidic.

It was an ideal opportunity to investigate the mechanisms that enable oligotrophic ecosystems to sustain productivity over geologic time, recycling a tiny pool of nutrients under conditions of high potential leaching loss.

It turns out that the same mechanisms that prevent nutrient loss also prevent loss of soil organic carbon.

The "gibber babble" will be meaningless to scientifically illiterate trolls.

Sooner or later, someone will join the discussion who understands actual science and the "gibber babble" used to communicate it.

It may be of historic interest to have a reference for what was literally the first paper published on this particular topic - chemical adaptations to extreme soil conditions.

The trolls may continue to insist that I don't even know what science is. That's okay. Other scientists take my work pretty seriously.

Maybe the next post should get into some of the papers that CITED this one, coming out after 1995, because they continue right up to this year.

And since a fundamental requirement of the scientific method is that the results must be "reproducible", it is an important reality test after a discovery is published to see if other scientists can confirm it.

In fact, obvious proof that a "discovery" was NOT valid is if nobody ever bothers to cite it because it wasn't reproducible. Of if the only citations are to refute it.

It's okay if I get nothing but insults down here in the rabbit hole. I get plenty of praise from real scientists in the real world.



So you're saying a lack of flooding or run off allows for nutrients and organic carbon to remain in a given field? With aquifers going dry and drought becoming more prevalent, sustainable practices will probably become more of a focal point.
If people like eating then sustainable farming practices will probably replace the IPCC's we need to lower CO2 emissions.
And carbon sequestration would not be good for the ozone layer. Something the IPCC fails to mention.
Page 14 of 25<<<1213141516>>>





Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
carbon footprint17520-05-2024 21:13
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands13318-05-2024 23:59
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers106-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon3006-07-2023 23:51
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'821-06-2023 12:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact