Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

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.

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

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course, I anticipated your angle of attack, i.e. that your failure to define your terms was somehow my fault, so I tried (unsuccessfully) to redirect:

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.

There are no commonly understood "the definitions" when you are on tap to provide "your definitions".

I have already explained this to you. The terms you use might differ from the terms used by others. In the eyes of others who use different terminology, or perhaps understand the concepts through terms in another language, you are the one who doesn't know "the" definitions. When you are asked to provide "your" definitions, you are shutting down the discussion by refusing.

I get it that you were out saving the world from hexavalent chromium and the great disappearing alkalinity through mangroves and gamma-specs, and in so doing you learned a particular vocabulary. I can only speak for myself but I learned a different vocabulary. Rather than berate you for not knowing/using my "the definitions" I am politely requesting that you define "your definitions."

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.

Real scientists learn all the "their definitions" wherever they go if they want to keep their jobs. When the guy who signs the paychecks asks for definitions and explanations, you can bet that the definitions and explanations flow immediately, clearly and comprehensively ... and all follow-on questions are answered. Real scientists keep their jobs. Real scientists are used to answering questions, providing definitions, clarifying contexts and developing visualizations .

Needless to say, career academics who only role-play as scientists for captive audiences of students are not real scientists. Academics need to present the appearance of "knowing what they are talking about", whether or not that is actually true. Unfortunately, academics don't answer to anyone and thus become lazy and complacent. They don't venture outside their little academic bubbles into the real world where everything is results-oriented and where they need to support the people who created their jobs in the first place. The real world doesn't offer tenure. The real world demands added value. If you won't even add value by defining your terms, don't be surprised if the real world dismisses you outright and kicks you to the curb.

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

* No education is required to accompany your definitions.
* Your subject matter would actually be simple and straightforward if it weren't shrouded in confusion by a lack of definitions. I hope you don't consider clarifying your point and making it understandable to be "dumbing it down."

So, 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: "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.

But wait! Aren't you claiming to have some modicum of chemistry background? Who could possibly take you seriously if your understanding of chemistry is no better than that of common layman's misunderstanding? How could you be taken seriously if you are referring to petroleum and natural gas as "fossils"? How can you claim to be operating off "the definitions" when you don't know that the correct term is "hydrocarbons" and instead believe that the correct term is "fossils"? How can you be taken seriously as a chemist when you casually conflate carbon with hydrocarbons to the point that you put them in the same category?

I'll answer that for you: You can't possibly be taken seriously. Hydrocarbons and carbon are not the same thing. How do you not know this? How do pretend to put them in the same category under the justification that that is exactly what mistaken laymen do? ... unless, of course, you are a mistaken layman yourself and you are just doing what mistaken laymen do.

Seriously, how do you account for confusing hydrocarbons with fossils, believing that fossils are somehow burned as fuel, or that carbon and hydrocarbons are somehow the same thing? You are the one who is pouting about definitions, but as you refuse to define your terms, it becomes more and more self-evident that you don't define your terms because you don't understand the terms you use and you are desperate for an excuse to blame any/all confusion on someone else.

The good news is that this can be fixed in one post. Just define your terms and we can move forward.

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

I totally get it. What are you going to call hydrocarbons? What are you going to call carbon?

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

Petrified wood cannot be burned as fuel and thus does not qualify as "fuel" and thus does not qualify 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".

Now you are contradicting yourself. Many laymen classify lignin as fiber which they casually include as a "carbohydrate" ... just as casually as they might use the term "fossil fuel." Are you saying that laymen are not correct for mistakenly using the wrong terms or are you saying that they are totally correct for doing so?

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

The litmus test is whether you know that hydrocarbons are not carbon and know enough not to place them in the same category. One also has to know what a fossil is. One also has to know what fuel is.

I passed the test, by the way, and I can get on the rides.

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

Perhaps you should learn that dictionaries are not chemistry textbooks, although now I'm beginning to understand why you don't seem to know what basic chemists should have learned in their first year of studies.

Dictionaries provide usages for words, correct or otherwise. Dictionaries don't provide definitions. No dictionary owns the English language and thus no dictionary gets to define any words.

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.

This is a good example of how you are not using the commonly accepted definition. "Carbon sequestration" refers to pulling carbon dioxide out of something, not infusing carbon into something. This is a prime example of where you should have opened with your definition of "carbon sequestration" and avoided exactly this sort of confusion.

One has to wonder if you even know what "carbons sequestration" means.

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.

Swan wrote:
img]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vw9599of7hM/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]

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

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
img]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vw9599of7hM/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]

Mantra 40a.

IBdaMann wrote:
Real scientists learn all the "their definitions" wherever they go if they want to keep their jobs. When the guy who signs the paychecks asks for definitions and explanations, you can bet that the definitions and explanations flow immediately, clearly and comprehensively ... and all follow-on questions are answered. Real scientists keep their jobs. Real scientists are used to answering questions, providing definitions, clarifying contexts and developing visualizations .

Needless to say, career academics who only role-play as scientists for captive audiences of students are not real scientists. Academics need to present the appearance of "knowing what they are talking about", whether or not that is actually true. Unfortunately, academics don't answer to anyone and thus become lazy and complacent. They don't venture outside their little academic bubbles into the real world where everything is results-oriented and where they need to support the people who created their jobs in the first place. The real world doesn't offer tenure. The real world demands added value. If you won't even add value by defining your terms, don't be surprised if the real world dismisses you outright and kicks you to the curb.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
img]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vw9599of7hM/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]

Mantra 40a.

Stop...

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Real scientists learn all the "their definitions" wherever they go if they want to keep their jobs. When the guy who signs the paychecks asks for definitions and explanations, you can bet that the definitions and explanations flow immediately, clearly and comprehensively ... and all follow-on questions are answered. Real scientists keep their jobs. Real scientists are used to answering questions, providing definitions, clarifying contexts and developing visualizations .

Needless to say, career academics who only role-play as scientists for captive audiences of students are not real scientists. Academics need to present the appearance of "knowing what they are talking about", whether or not that is actually true. Unfortunately, academics don't answer to anyone and thus become lazy and complacent. They don't venture outside their little academic bubbles into the real world where everything is results-oriented and where they need to support the people who created their jobs in the first place. The real world doesn't offer tenure. The real world demands added value. If you won't even add value by defining your terms, don't be surprised if the real world dismisses you outright and kicks you to the curb.

I would just like to say this little rant if yours is just oozing with wisdom, applicable to all facets of free market employment reality. This rant should be required reading material for high school students and I'd also vote for mandatory inclusion into every graduation ceremony as part of any education curriculum.

Well said.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
img]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vw9599of7hM/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]

Mantra 40a.

Stop...

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.

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

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

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

There is nobody at this website to protect the smallest ones from going on the big scary rides.

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. 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.

One thing that real scientists in the real world 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.

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

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.

"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. End of discussion.

Word games are certainly possible.

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

It began as fuel (wood) that got buried by volcanic ash or mud.

It was fossilized when the original organic carbon all got replaced by silica.

But don't expect anyone to stop calling petroleum, coal, and natural gas "fossil fuel"

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.

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".

Don't try to get on this ride if your scientific education isn't tall enough.

Maybe you should first learn how to use a dictionary. Or "go and learn some science" from a textbook. Maybe even take an actual classroom course in science.

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.

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

This stuff is not for the intellectually challenged.

Im a BM wrote:With apologies to the new viewer. Inquiries regarding the definition of terms are welcome from almost everyone.

Im a BM wrote:"Define your terms" was a demand to derail every discussion into an endless, pointless, numbingly repetitive and incredibly stupid word game, completely devoid of science.

09-03-2022 18:58 - IBdaMann requested of sealover:Define: "Climate", "Climate Change", "Climate Change mitigation" and criteria for evaluating Climate Change mitigation.

Im a BM wrote:Sooner or later, someone with genuine interest in the thread topic will see it.

09-03-2022 20:13 - IBdaMann requested of sealover:Now, the ball is in your court. Why should any rational adult believe your notion that there are any changes occurring to the ocean that are of any concern whatsoever?

Im a BM wrote:Genuine inquiries into terminology will get a response that hopefully clears it up the very first time.

sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
"so this is a slowing of organic rotting?" YES! Excellent choice of words.

Yes, it is indeed "a slowing of organic rotting."

Apologies to tmiddles that I failed to answer the question until now.

ONE part of it is a slowing of organic rot action.

ANOTHER part is the Nitrogen Cycle, preventing mineralization of organic nitrogen, and preventing nitrification of ammonium.

TWO important ways to bring about "a slowing of organic rotting".

ONE is the waterlogged condition of a wetland. Lack of oxygen slows organic rotting. Straightforward enough, right?

TWO is the high polyphenol content of vegetation on well drained soils.

Microorganisms have a hard time degrading it. The mean residence time of polyphenol rich organic matter in soil can be centuries.

"organic rotting" is an EXCELLENT choice of words.

It includes the microbiological aspect of "rotting", and the proper identification of the carbon transformation involved.

"organic rotting" takes "organic carbon" and turns it into "inorganic carbon".

Organic carbon is carbohydrates, hydrocarbons, and all the other stuff of organic chemistry - long, long, long list of unique organic carbon compounds.

Inorganic carbon is oxidized, has oxygen attached: carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate. VERY short list of inorganic carbon players. One weak acid. Two oxyanions that supply alkalinity.

And YES, with polyphenols, it's ALL ABOUT "a slowing of organic rotting."

Thank you for a legitimate and useful question. Thank you for being decent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]tmiddles wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:...increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. ...

sealover wrote:
Ozone (O3) @ 0.00006%. Oxygen (O2) @ 21% of atmosphere.

Ozone is present as a trace gas present in a remarkably thin layer of the stratosphere.

When ozone is present closer to the earth's surface, it is a MUCH STRONGER OXIDANT than dioxygen gas (O2).

Ozone near ground level left a "bathtub ring" among the pines around the LA Basin.

Visible from space in the 1990s, a "bathtub ring" of dead or discolored vegetation, all at the exact same elevation in the mountains all around the basin. It was ozone damage.

When plants perform photosynthesis, they have to pass relatively large volumes of air through their stomata in order to get enough of the trace gas CO2.

This makes them vulnerable to ANY airborne pollutant.

It also makes plants good at scrubbing airborne pollutants out of the air.

But the ozone was killing them, across a very narrow range of elevation.

The LA basin becomes a stagnant trap for air sometimes.

The layer where the ozone was forming, as UV interacted with smog, stayed at a very narrow range of elevation above sea level.

The ozone burned a bathtub ring in the trees around the LA basin.

A bath tub ring you could see from OUTER SPACE.

So, ozone is very different than the oxygen (O2) that comprises 21% of the atmosphere.

The fact that the total pool of ozone in the stratosphere is so TINY compared to the total pool of oxygen or any other major gas in the atmosphere...

Don't read too much into the difference.

Just because ozone is only 0.00006% of the gas in the total atmosphere, consider where it is located.

The ozone is concentrated in a METERS THICK (i.e. incredibly THIN) layer in the stratosphere.

At that point of contact, UV rays are going to have a tough time getting past all those ozone molecules concentrated in that thin layer.

When it comes to total "pools", sometimes size does not matter.

It's knowing how to pack all your ozone tightly into an extremely thin shield.

WITHIN the ozone layer, I suspect that the concentration of ozone is significantly higher than 0.00006%. Maybe even higher than 21%.

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




[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

sealover wrote:
Anhydrous Ammonia is DRY ammonia, NH3, NOT ammonium, NH4+ .

Yes, there IS such a field of science as SOIL SCIENCE.

And yes, Hans Jenny was a genius, equivalent to Darwin or Einstein as far as paradigm shifting influence within their fields of science.

In the 1930s, Hans Jenny became known as the "friend of the farmer" for the tremendous boost in corn production he assisted with.

Few soil scientists become famous in any way, but this was also part of the New Deal outreach with the Soil Conservation Service. A time when caring about soil was being made a national priority.

Well, Hans Jenny theoretically conceived an entirely new way to fertilize.

Hans knew that there are many cation exchange site, i.e. acid neutralizing sites, that hold protons. Like the protons on an acidic groups of humic acids, for example.

Hans knew that ammonia gas ought to be able to attach to the protons on those cation exchange sites or protonated organic acids. Hans knew that the NH3 ought to combine with the H+ to make and adsorbed NH4+.

The ammonia had to be DRY, anhydrous NH3. Hans even figured out before they ever tried it that it would very effectively capture the ammonia gas if properly applied, with minimal gaseous loss to the atmosphere.

Nobody had ever tried it, but Hans told them it ought to work.

So, they tried it and it worked.

Some folks made millions from his idea, but Hans never saw a dime of it.

Still, the farmers knew it was Hans who thought of it and he was actually a popular figure, kind of like Fauci was at first.

This was decades before the Green Revolution started selectively breeding for high responders to nitrogen fertilizer. This was just a breakthrough in fertilizer technology made possible by a good understanding of soil chemistry.

I got to know Hans Jenny as friend in the final years of his life.

He encouraged me to go to his favorite forest, the pygmy forest, to test my polyphenol hypothesis. He died before I did exactly that.

He was telling us about the dry ammonia story, and he mentioned the downside of nitrogen fertilizer leading to nitrous oxide emissions.

I asked him if he regretted his invention, given that it did cause more nitrous oxide emissions.

He thought for a bit before answering.

He was glad that it brought about increased income for farmers and increased food supply for humanity.

He did have some regrets that it had contributed to loss of soil organic matter and to emission of nitrous oxide.

It was going to be up to MY generation of scientists to deal with those things.

I used to be younger... sigh.

So, it is NOT the SOIL that is dry. It is DRY AMMONIA added to the wet soil.

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

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
Hans Jenny was one of the all time greatest geniuses in soil science.

sealover wrote:
His contributions are many, including the dramatic increases in corn harvests that followed his theoretical development of dry ammonia adsorption to soil.