Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

James_ wrote:

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.

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.


John G. McColl et. al. 1990. Organics and metal solubility in California forest soils. P. 178-195. IN Gessel, SP, et al. (eds). Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils. Proc. 7th N. American Forest Soils Conference.

In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.

Note that the term "organics" is in the title.

The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Scientists don't do that.

The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

This particular paper included the NSF-funded research into how acid rain impacted forest soils.

In particular, the low pH of acid rain reduced the solubility of phenol carboxylic acids leaching from the forest floor.

Because the protonation of these organic acids by acid rain reduced the availability of soluble organic anions, it reduced the amount of iron, aluminum, and manganese leaching from the upper mineral soil.

Instead, calcium and magnesium were being mobilized as sulfates or nitrates, which then leached out of the soil. Without acid rain, calcium and magnesium were retained against leaching by the soil's cation exchange capacity (CEC).

Sooner or later, someone who is genuinely interested in this thread topic might take interest.

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.

...deleted Holy Quote...
In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.
Note that the term "organics" is in the title.
The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientists don't do that.

Im a BM wrote:
The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

Im a BM wrote:
It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted random Holy Quotes...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.

...deleted Holy Quote...
In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.
Note that the term "organics" is in the title.
The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Define 'organics'.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientists don't do that.

Yes they do. They specifically define every term.

Im a BM wrote:
The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

Forests are productive. There are trees in it, you know.

Im a BM wrote:
It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

Farmers improve soil fertility by applying fertilizer, sometimes real shit. Forests are productive.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted random Holy Quotes...

Quoting random shit doesn't make you smart. It only means you just cut and paste to boost your ego.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.

...deleted Holy Quote...
In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.
Note that the term "organics" is in the title.
The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Define 'organics'.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientists don't do that.

Yes they do. They specifically define every term.

Im a BM wrote:
The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

Forests are productive. There are trees in it, you know.

Im a BM wrote:
It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

Farmers improve soil fertility by applying fertilizer, sometimes real shit. Forests are productive.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted random Holy Quotes...

Quoting random shit doesn't make you smart. It only means you just cut and paste to boost your ego.

Says the cut and paste queen

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.

...deleted Holy Quote...
In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.
Note that the term "organics" is in the title.
The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Define 'organics'.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientists don't do that.

Yes they do. They specifically define every term.

Im a BM wrote:
The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

Forests are productive. There are trees in it, you know.

Im a BM wrote:
It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

Farmers improve soil fertility by applying fertilizer, sometimes real shit. Forests are productive.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted random Holy Quotes...

Quoting random shit doesn't make you smart. It only means you just cut and paste to boost your ego.

Says the cut and paste queen

Hallucination.

Im a BM wrote:
Sooner or later, someone who is actually interested in the thread topic will join in.


This paper includes my soil research in a tropical rain forest.


(yours truly et al). 1999. Effect of plant polyphenols on nutrient cycling and implications for community structure. p. 369-380. In Inderjit (ed) Principles and Practices in Chemical Ecology. Allelochemical Interactions. CRC Press.

This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Monospecific thickets of tannin-rich ferns move into disturbed rain forest sites
after pioneer species have already moved in.

They snuff out the competition ("Allelochemical Interactions") and then impede forest succession for decades.

They sequester tons of carbon into a surface organic layer more than a meter thick. Under warm, wet, well drained conditions that ought to favor rapid decomposition.

There are many different kinds of soil that can be found under tropical rain forests. Most are not so fertile. Some are extremely infertile. Some are highly fertile. It basically depends on soil age and parent material, since tropical rain forests all occur under basically the same climate regime.

Understanding of the biogeochemical mechanisms that enable plant communities to survive and thrive on the most infertile soils has enabled agronomists and foresters to improve fertility and productivity across a broad range of soil types.

Going to dig up some references to how this has already benefitted farmers and foresters, even though most of the papers make no reference to climate change.

Plus, it's kind of fun because the easiest way to find them is to look up who has cited my research and how they have applied it.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.

...deleted Holy Quote...
In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.
Note that the term "organics" is in the title.
The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Define 'organics'.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientists don't do that.

Yes they do. They specifically define every term.

Im a BM wrote:
The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

Forests are productive. There are trees in it, you know.

Im a BM wrote:
It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

Farmers improve soil fertility by applying fertilizer, sometimes real shit. Forests are productive.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted random Holy Quotes...

Quoting random shit doesn't make you smart. It only means you just cut and paste to boost your ego.

Says the cut and paste queen

Hallucination.

Your...

Im a BM wrote:
Sooner or later, someone who is actually interested in the thread topic will join in.


This paper includes my soil research in a tropical rain forest.


(yours truly et al). 1999. Effect of plant polyphenols on nutrient cycling and implications for community structure. p. 369-380. In Inderjit (ed) Principles and Practices in Chemical Ecology. Allelochemical Interactions. CRC Press.

This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Monospecific thickets of tannin-rich ferns move into disturbed rain forest sites
after pioneer species have already moved in.

They snuff out the competition ("Allelochemical Interactions") and then impede forest succession for decades.

They sequester tons of carbon into a surface organic layer more than a meter thick. Under warm, wet, well drained conditions that ought to favor rapid decomposition.

There are many different kinds of soil that can be found under tropical rain forests. Most are not so fertile. Some are extremely infertile. Some are highly fertile. It basically depends on soil age and parent material, since tropical rain forests all occur under basically the same climate regime.

Understanding of the biogeochemical mechanisms that enable plant communities to survive and thrive on the most infertile soils has enabled agronomists and foresters to improve fertility and productivity across a broad range of soil types.

Going to dig up some references to how this has already benefitted farmers and foresters, even though most of the papers make no reference to climate change.

Plus, it's kind of fun because the easiest way to find them is to look up who has cited my research and how they have applied it.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.

...deleted Holy Quote...
In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.
Note that the term "organics" is in the title.
The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Define 'organics'.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientists don't do that.

Yes they do. They specifically define every term.

Im a BM wrote:
The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

Forests are productive. There are trees in it, you know.

Im a BM wrote:
It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

Farmers improve soil fertility by applying fertilizer, sometimes real shit. Forests are productive.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted random Holy Quotes...

Quoting random shit doesn't make you smart. It only means you just cut and paste to boost your ego.

Says the cut and paste queen

Hallucination.

Your...

Mantra 1d.

Im a BM wrote:This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Would you mind providing your definitions (for discussion) for the following terms?:

carbon sequestration
Monospecific thickets
tannin-rich ferns (as opposed to tannin-deficient)
pioneer species
Allelochemical Interactions
forest succession
surface organic layer
climate regime.
biogeochemical mechanisms

Thank you.

sealover wrote:
Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling.

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

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

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

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

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

Im a BM wrote:

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.

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


Sooner or later, someone who has genuine interest in learning about the topic of this thread will see it.

Swan wrote:How would that happen since this is a clandestine private network?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:How would that happen since this is a clandestine private network?

It will happen in conjunction with the FBI interviews.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:How would that happen since this is a clandestine private network?

It will happen in conjunction with the FBI interviews.

LOL, the fact is that if this were a real climate board that new people would be joining literally every day, instead of one new member every ten years.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:How would that happen since this is a clandestine private network?

It will happen in conjunction with the FBI interviews.

LOL, the fact is that if this were a real climate board that new people would be joining literally every day, instead of one new member every ten years.

The FBI already completed the background investigation for this site, so it's a real site. Newcomers without the proper clearance can't access it, so it keeps the riff-raff away, ... well, most of it anyway.

If only this site were run on a quantum computer at ten million times the speed of light then all of the riff-raff would be kept at bay. But then again, all of the riff-raff will just find ways to run on quantum computers at ten million times the speed of light ... and they would get in no matter what was done.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.

...deleted Holy Quote...
In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.
Note that the term "organics" is in the title.
The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Define 'organics'.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientists don't do that.

Yes they do. They specifically define every term.

Im a BM wrote:
The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

Forests are productive. There are trees in it, you know.

Im a BM wrote:
It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

Farmers improve soil fertility by applying fertilizer, sometimes real shit. Forests are productive.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted random Holy Quotes...

Quoting random shit doesn't make you smart. It only means you just cut and paste to boost your ego.

Says the cut and paste queen

Hallucination.

Your...

Mantra 1d.

You...

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Would you mind providing your definitions (for discussion) for the following terms?:

carbon sequestration
Monospecific thickets
tannin-rich ferns (as opposed to tannin-deficient)
pioneer species
Allelochemical Interactions
forest succession
surface organic layer
climate regime.
biogeochemical mechanisms

Thank you.

Well...

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
*spam*

Sooner...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Would you mind providing your definitions (for discussion) for the following terms?:

carbon sequestration
Monospecific thickets
tannin-rich ferns (as opposed to tannin-deficient)
pioneer species
Allelochemical Interactions
forest succession
surface organic layer
climate regime.
biogeochemical mechanisms

Thank you.

Well...

Mantra 40a.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Would you mind providing your definitions (for discussion) for the following terms?:

carbon sequestration
Monospecific thickets
tannin-rich ferns (as opposed to tannin-deficient)
pioneer species
Allelochemical Interactions
forest succession
surface organic layer
climate regime.
biogeochemical mechanisms

Thank you.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Would you mind providing your definitions (for discussion) for the following terms?:

carbon sequestration
Monospecific thickets
tannin-rich ferns (as opposed to tannin-deficient)
pioneer species
Allelochemical Interactions
forest succession
surface organic layer
climate regime.
biogeochemical mechanisms

Thank you.

Well...

Mantra 40a.

Do ...

Im a BM wrote:
Amusement parks, fairs, and carnivals have hired personnel to ensure that kids who are too small don't get on the scary rides.

Im a BM wrote:
There is often a sign that says, "You must be THIS tall to ride", with a mark showing the minimum height requirement.

Im a BM wrote:
There is nobody at this website to protect the smallest ones from going on the big scary rides.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone who doesn't even know the definition of "organic carbon"

Im a BM wrote:
isn't going to be able to make much sense of this thread topic.

Im a BM wrote:
They will have little or no knowledge of value to contribute. They won't even know how to ask an intelligent question in many cases.

Im a BM wrote:
One thing that real scientists in the real world

Im a BM wrote:
do is learn the definitions of terms as part of their basic training. They learn how to find the definitions without having to ask somebody. They don't get far if they cannot do this.

Im a BM wrote:
Too much remedial education would be required, and I am not willing to "dumb down" my posts to compensate.

Im a BM wrote:
If it is all just "gibber babble" and "buzzwords" anyway, none of the words actually mean anything. Or they mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.

Im a BM wrote:
"Fossil fuel", for example.

Im a BM wrote:
Most people with some minimal education and literacy understand that "fossil fuel" refers to petroleum, coal, and natural gas found in underground deposits. End of discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
Word games are certainly possible.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps one of the only substances that truly qualifies for the word game definition of "fossil fuel" is petrified wood.

Im a BM wrote:
It began as fuel (wood) that got buried by volcanic ash or mud.

Im a BM wrote:
But don't expect anyone to stop calling petroleum, coal, and natural gas "fossil fuel"

Im a BM wrote:
And don't expect anyone to try to burn petrified wood just because it technically qualifies as "fossil fuel", according to some stupid word game.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't try to redefine lignin as a carbohydrate

Im a BM wrote:
because it depends only on "Who owns the English language" around a non-chemistry term such as "fiber".

Im a BM wrote:
Don't try to get on this ride if your scientific education isn't tall enough.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe you should first learn how to use a dictionary.

Im a BM wrote:
Or "go and learn some science" from a textbook.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe even take an actual classroom course in science.

Im a BM wrote:
I can't imagine why someone who doesn't already have a pretty good idea what "carbon sequestration" is would even want to look at this thread.

Im a BM wrote:
Let alone, preach in an endless series of numbingly repetitive posts, with plenty of insults and false accusations thrown in for fun.

Im a BM wrote:
This stuff is not for the intellectually challenged.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Would you mind providing your definitions (for discussion) for the following terms?:

carbon sequestration
Monospecific thickets
tannin-rich ferns (as opposed to tannin-deficient)
pioneer species
Allelochemical Interactions
forest succession
surface organic layer
climate regime.
biogeochemical mechanisms

Thank you.

Well...

Mantra 40a.

Do ...

Mantra 40a.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:This one is highly relevant to carbon sequestration.

Would you mind providing your definitions (for discussion) for the following terms?:

carbon sequestration
Monospecific thickets
tannin-rich ferns (as opposed to tannin-deficient)
pioneer species
Allelochemical Interactions
forest succession
surface organic layer
climate regime.
biogeochemical mechanisms

Thank you.

Im a BM wrote:Someone who doesn't even know the definition of "organic carbon" isn't going to be able to make much sense of this thread topic.

Im a BM wrote:One thing that real scientists in the real world do is learn the definitions of terms as part of their basic training.

Im a BM wrote: Too much remedial education would be required, and I am not willing to "dumb down" my posts to compensate.

Im a BM wrote: "Fossil fuel", for example. Most people with some minimal education and literacy understand that "fossil fuel" refers to petroleum, coal, and natural gas found in underground deposits.

Im a BM wrote: But don't expect [any mistaken laymen] to stop calling petroleum, coal, and natural gas "fossil fuel"

Im a BM wrote: And don't expect anyone to try to burn petrified wood just because it technically qualifies as "fossil fuel"

Im a BM wrote: Don't try to redefine lignin as a carbohydrate because it depends only on "Who owns the English language" around a non-chemistry term such as "fiber".

Im a BM wrote: Don't try to get on this ride if your scientific education isn't tall enough.

Im a BM wrote: Maybe you should first learn how to use a dictionary.

Im a BM wrote: I can't imagine why someone who doesn't already have a pretty good idea what "carbon sequestration" is would even want to look at this thread.

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.

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

.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 pages long, it includes extensive discussion about lignin.

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

Im a BM wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
My first publication that is directly relevant to this thread was in 1990.

I hadn't yet finished a master's degree at UC Berkeley.


John G. McColl et. al. 1990. Organics and metal solubility in California forest soils. P. 178-195. IN Gessel, SP, et al. (eds). Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils. Proc. 7th N. American Forest Soils Conference.

In this case, I was merely "allowed" to be on the list of authors.

Note that the term "organics" is in the title.

The paper does not bother to give a definition for this commonly used term.

Scientists don't do that.

The book title "Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils" suggests why a rational adult might agree that it is a subject worthy of pursuit.

It is very gratifying to see all the research that followed, which has enabled farmers to improve soil fertility and foresters to improve productivity.

This particular paper included the NSF-funded research into how acid rain impacted forest soils.

In particular, the low pH of acid rain reduced the solubility of phenol carboxylic acids leaching from the forest floor.

Because the protonation of these organic acids by acid rain reduced the availability of soluble organic anions, it reduced the amount of iron, aluminum, and manganese leaching from the upper mineral soil.

Instead, calcium and magnesium were being mobilized as sulfates or nitrates, which then leached out of the soil. Without acid rain, calcium and magnesium were retained against leaching by the soil's cation exchange capacity (CEC).

Sooner or later, someone who is genuinely interested in this thread topic might take interest.