Remember me
▼ Content

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems



Page 17 of 21<<<1516171819>>>
07-06-2023 04:35
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]sealover wrote:
A Land Title for Slash-and-Burn Squatters.

The world's poorest people do not live in urban slums.

They are subsistence farmers who own no land.

It is a most difficult way to survive.

Slash-and-burn farmers have little incentive to make improvements to the land for soil erosion control.

If they do, the landowner will discover it, thank them for the favor, and kick them off so he can pay his own people to farm it.

He's going to find out soon enough that they cleared it, anyway.

He will kick them off so he can bring in cattle to graze it.

So, the slash-and-burn squatters just get what they can get while they can get it.

What happens if you offer them a land title?

In exchange for farming it in the way they would have preferred to in any case.

They take much better care of the land, get better yields, and don't have to keep packing up their families to move on to slash and burn more forest.
07-06-2023 04:37
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]sealover wrote:
Women in agroforestry goes way back in time.

Men, as in males, have being practicing field crop agriculture for at least ten or twelve thousand years.

Women were practicing agroforestry in rain forests long before that.

Given the choice of any territory to conquer, rain forests were some of the best.

If you could defend enough area for your tribe to share maybe five or ten square kilometers per person, you could enjoy abundance.

Men only had to work a few hours a day, on average. Put in long overtime hours on expeditions, but plenty of R and R when they get back to the settlement.

Women didn't leave the settlement, at least not very far.

They figured out how to plant small gardens in the small openings under the forest canopy they created.

They figured out how to select for more of the fruit trees or other plants around that provided their needs.

Over time, they changed the composition of the local forest plant community.

To this day, one can walk into a traditional agroforestry cropping system and be unaware that it is not a natural forest.

Then someone points out that every single plant of every size you see is one that has been deliberately cultivated for its value to the farmers.

To this day, one can visit a rain forest tribe and find that only the women know how to take care of the plants.

Women in agroforestry goes way back in time.
07-06-2023 04:38
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]sealover wrote:
A tale of two coffee plantations.

Coffee is, by far, the biggest cash crop in the central highlands of the Dominican Republic.

Most coffee farmers still use the traditional agroforestry method to grow it.

There is an overstory of Inga vera trees.

These tall trees have nitrogen fixing bacteria associated with their roots.

Inga vera litterfall provides the nitrogen fertilizer to the coffee bushes.

Throughout the plantation are also mid sized trees, usually citrus.

All throughout the ground level are smaller crops, typically root crops such as cassava.

There is no harm tearing up a small patch of soil to dig out the roots. Inga vera litter is everywhere to cover it up and protect from erosion.

In addition to Inga vera, there are often other tall trees. Usually precious wood, like mahogany.

Every plant on the farm is of economic value. Inga vera eventually provides wood as well, though not so precious. Great for firewood or charcoal.

But much of the sunlight in the plantation is supporting plants that are not coffee bushes.

The coffee yield per hectare is low, compared to a monocrop system.

The monocrop coffee plantations (a pleno sol) have ALL the sunlight supporting coffee bushes, and only coffee bushes.

The yield of these monocrop plantations is much lower than the agroforestry version for coffee production.

The monocrop coffee plantations must be provided with exogenous nitrogen fertilizer to produce well. Not the case with agroforestry.

The monocrop coffee plantations have declining yield over the years, and are subject to runoff and erosion, while being less resistant to drought.

Not the case with agroforestry.

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

Rethinking coffee processing as a source of biofuel.

Coffee berries are sweet. Lots of sugar that often ferments to alcohol.

When the coffee berries are harvested, they are taken elsewhere to be depulped and have the coffee seeds dry out in the sun.

A mechanical "despulpador", electric or gasoline powered, removes the sweet berry pulp, which is discarded.

The seeds are then laid out in the sun to dry.

The discarded pulp is eventually collected and used as nutrient rich compost.

By then, the sugar is all gone.

Coffee berry wine is easy to make, but not very palatable.

However, if the coffee berry pulp were first used to make wine, it could be distilled to make ethanol biofuel. Later, the nutrient rich compost can be used.

It would be one extra step in the coffee processing process.
07-06-2023 04:39
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Northern California coastal pines in Australia and New Zealand

Two pine species from the coast of northern California were used for large scale forest plantations in Australia and New Zealand.

Monterrey pine taken to Australia in the 1940s provided major evidence for the indispensable role of mycorrhizal fungi.

Bishop pine (Pinus muricata) introduced in more recent decades to large scale plantations in New Zealand provided major evidence for another important factor to consider.

Bishop pines use much less water than the native vegetation that was cleared to make room for them.

This altered hydrologic conditions significantly.

Much less soil water was being consumed by evapotranspiration.

Much more soil water was going downslope as subsurface flow.

This created new wetlands at the bottom of the slopes, messed up a lot of farmland, and created a need to intervene with engineering to facilitate drainage.

On the other hand, foresters have long known that they could introduce more water demanding species to let trees help drain swampy areas through increased evapotranspiration of subsurface flow coming in.

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

[quote]sealover wrote:
Mycorrhizal fungi - Is coca like Monterrey pine?

Monterrey pine helped scientists realize just how important mycorrhizal fungi.

Without the symbiotic fungi associated with their roots, they grow very poorly.

Foresters thought Monterrey pine would do well in Australia. It did not.

The soil and climate were right for it. Why was it growing so poorly (at first).

Well, they took the pine seeds from California, but they didn't think to bring along the symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi.

After a disastrous start for the pine plantations and some research to figure out what went wrong... They brought over some California soil that contained the fungi.

After inoculation with the fungal partners, the pine plantations thrived.

Why is coca restricted to the Andes?

Couldn't it grow in the Himalayas or some other high mountain range with similar soil and climate?

I'm sure that many have tried and failed. Good thing they don't know fungus.
07-06-2023 04:40
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Root:shoot ratio versus belowground allocation of carbon.

I had the incredible good fortune of being a friend and colleague to Hans Jenny, the world's preeminent soil scientist.

I wish he had lived long enough to find out that I followed his advice and conducted research to test my hypothesis in his favorite ecosystem of all the world, northern California's pygmy forest.

In 1985, the first presentation of his that I attended was to open up the John Muir House in Martinez, California as a museum.

Hans Jenny spoke of one the adverse environmental impacts of the "Green Revolution".

The new breeds were able to produce such phenomenal above ground yields because they were allocating very little carbon below ground to acquire nutrients.

The result was continuous net loss of soil organic matter, as it was decomposing faster than it was being replaced.

This made the soil a net source of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

By spoon feeding our crops concentrated nutrients in mineral form, they could produce minimal root systems and thrive.

However, if one only measures the root:shoot ratio of the crop, one would conclude that the new breeds were putting no less carbon underground than their ancestors.

How much carbon a plant allocates underground is not the same as how much root mass the plant produces.

Nearly all plants allocate a substantial fraction of their photosynthate below ground to feed symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi on their roots.

Some plants, such as legumes, allocate carbon below ground to feed symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria.

Such allocations of photosynthate to symbiotic underground organisms are made to acquire nutrients from the soil.

The plants won't do it if they don't have to.

One of the most common mycorrhizal association is the vessicular arbuscular variety.

The plant roots are actually smaller when these are present.

Root tips are short and stubby.

Instead, the hyphae network of the symbiotic fungi extend out everywhere, contacting about fifty times as much soil surface as the roots of the plant.

The plant generously feeds its fungal partner in exchange for nutrients that the fungi acquires from the soil.

Shifting back to pre "Green Revolution" breeds would result in smaller yields.

On the other hand, it would enable the organic matter content to rebuild, with all the associated soil productivity benefits.

This would then enable our agricultural soils to become, once again, a net sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Rather than being net emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere, farm soils could be a major net sink to sequester CO2 and transform it into soil organic matter.

With much higher nutrient use efficiency, less fertilizer would be needed, and far less excess fertilizer would enter waters or emit nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.
07-06-2023 04:41
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Peasant agricultural science and agroforestry

In the 1980s, agronomists began the effort to understand peasant agricultural science in a new way.

I had the fortune of knowing Miguel Altieri, of UC Berkeley, and Gerardo Budowski, of Costa Rica's CATIE.

Gerardo took us on a tour to see multiple agroforestry practices among the minority of farmers who still knew how to manage them.

With all the diversity of a natural forest, one might not know that they had stumbled on to somebody's farm.

Multiple canopies of multiple plant species, all of value to the farmer.

The local agronomists on the tour were as different from their compatriot peasants as I was.

They were city boys who had undergone two years of training in at the ag school in the big city.

They knew how to apply all the chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.

They had no idea what they were looking at on the agroforestry farm.

Their training would have been to advise the farmer to mow it all down and switch to monocrop, mechanized agriculture using lots of chemicals.

"Rendimiento sostenible" (sustainable yield) was possible when the peasant agricultural science was applied.

Declining yield, declining soil organic matter content, increased erosion, and runoff of chemicals into water supplies was possible when the trained agronomists came in to fix the inefficient system
07-06-2023 04:42
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote

Lignin is a carbohydrate.


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


Parrot Boy makes the absurd assertion that lignin is a carbohydrate.

An easily debunked falsehood.

But carbon cycling is far more pertinent to climate change than the organic chemistry definitions for carbohydrate versus lignin.

Parrot Boy keeps insisting that there is no such thing as organic carbon.

Apparently, there is a major field of chemistry based on a buzzword.

It matters to discussion of depletion of the sea's alkalinity, because inorganic carbon (bicarbonate and carbonate) provides the overwhelming majority of the acid neutralizing capacity, which is synonymous with alkalinity. At the same time, the third form of inorganic carbon, carbon dioxide, is the dominant source of acidity causing ocean "acidification" (a very bad misnomer for depletion of alkalinity while pH remains well above 7).

It matters to discussion of global warming, because the transformation of organic carbon to inorganic carbon, as fossil fuel is combusted with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, is the dominant source of additional (beyond historic norms) greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
07-06-2023 04:44
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
James_ wrote:
If my experiment shows that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer then carbon sequestration would need to be a reversible process. This is because if
ODSs are not reduced then where would gasses for the ozone layer come from?

quoting NOAA who is quoting the IPCC;
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.



Im a BM wrote:
for Roj475

another major area that might be of interest for discussion, rather than "debate".


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



[quote]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.



James, you might want to check something out before you submit your paper for review.

From the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics volume 17 12893-12910

This 2017 paper by Khosrawi et al is titled "Denitrification, dehydration and ozone loss during the 2015/2016 Artic winter."

The first sentence of the abstract:

"The 2015/2016 Artic winter was one of the coldest stratospheric winters in recent years."

While surface temperatures were setting new records for the warmest years, the stratosphere was setting new records for coldest winters.

When the stratosphere gets cold enough, tiny droplets of liquid nitric acid can freeze and fall toward the surface. This is called "denitrification".

Apparently there is no "unambiguous definition" for the term (making it a "buzzword"?), because "denitrification" ALSO means microbial nitrate reduction to form nitrogen gas, and by product nitrous oxide.

"Denitrification" in soil and water at the earth's surface is the largest source of nitrous oxide emitted to the atmosphere.

As you note, nitrous oxide plays a role in the stratosphere.

With a very powerful oxidant such as ozone around, nitrous oxide can oxidize to form nitric acid, taking ozone out in the process.

With stratospheric temperatures setting new records for COLD winters, nitric acid gets more opportunities to freeze. Other ozone destroying agents get caught up in the nitric acid ice crystals as they form.

By some accounts, THIS is what has enabled the ozone layer to recover.

I encourage you to study up a bit on stratospheric denitrification, which happens when some of that nitric acid freezes.

It might help you complete the puzzle you are working on
07-06-2023 04:45
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
According to the EPA, N2O (nitrous oxide) has a 300 times greater impact on global warming than CO2 does. CO2 is 79% of GHG emissions while N2O is only 7%.
A little math tell us .79 x 1 = .79 Then
.............................07 x 300 = 21
We have a winner folks. 21 is always a winer in Vegas but what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
If not, why go to Vegas to gamble and party? Right folks? So 21 is always a winner in Vegas.
And now we're back to ODSs and ozone depletion. And CO2 is helping the ozone layer to recover.
Kind of makes me feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If3SXJeZzMQ




Thank you, James

Yes, nitrous oxide is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than methane or carbon dioxide.

Problem with assigning a number like 300 is it has to account for both the inherent capacity of the molecule to absorb and reemit infrared light AND its residence time in the atmosphere.

Back to stratospheric denitrification, because nitrous oxide does more than just act as a greenhouse gas.

When ozone oxidizes nitrous oxide, causing some ozone loss in the process, some of it becomes nitric acid.

It has been 20 years since I last got paid to research nitrous oxide in the Ivory Tower, and at that time the jury was still out regarding the net impact.

When the nitric acid freezes in the stratosphere, it creates a solid surface that can adsorb ozone destroying agents on its surface.

These include the many combinations of sulfur and oxygen (SOx), other NOx's, and non-CFC compounds of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine.

Once adsorbed to the surface of a solid suspended particle, they create a stationary target for collision with ozone molecules.

Whereas two free floating gas molecules are most likely to bounce off each other in an elastic collision, hitting a stationary target where one of them can't bounce away is far more likely to permit overlap of outer electron shells and rearrangement of chemical bonds.

One school of thought was that this facilitated a lot of ozone destruction.

On the other hand, if that stationary target cannot stay suspended and falls toward the earth, it carries the adsorbed ozone-destroying agents away with it.

One school of thought was that this is what minimized ozone destruction and accounted for the observed recovery.

The unknown variable was how long do the nitric acid crystals stay suspended before they fall out during denitrification.

Do they have enough time suspended as a stationary target to do more harm than good?

Human activity is responsible for a lot more nitrous oxide entering the atmosphere. Whether as a direct result of fossil fuel combustion and fertilizer synthesis, or an indirect result of excess agricultural nitrogen providing nitrate for microbial nitrate reduction and by product generation of nitrous oxide.

Some of us were wondering if by lucky accident, nitrous oxide was actually protecting the ozone layer and allowing it to recover
07-06-2023 04:47
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
According to the EPA, N2O (nitrous oxide) has a 300 times greater impact on global warming than CO2 does. CO2 is 79% of GHG emissions while N2O is only 7%.
A little math tell us .79 x 1 = .79 Then
.............................07 x 300 = 21
We have a winner folks. 21 is always a winer in Vegas but what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
If not, why go to Vegas to gamble and party? Right folks? So 21 is always a winner in Vegas.
And now we're back to ODSs and ozone depletion. And CO2 is helping the ozone layer to recover.
Kind of makes me feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If3SXJeZzMQ



I was surprised to see EPA saying nitrous oxide has 300 times as much global warming potential as CO2.

The people I knew who were researching it were estimating about 200, but that was more than 10 years ago.

The easy part is to use spectroscopy in a lab and compare carbon dioxide to nitrous oxide.

That will tell you, gram per gram or mole per mole, how much more capable nitrous oxide is compared to carbon dioxide to absorb and emit infrared.

You can get an exact answer out to the tenth decimal place.

But the hard part is to know how long the gases remain in the atmosphere.

To calculate global warming potential (GWP), you have to have a mean residence time for the gas in the air.

An incredibly powerful greenhouse gas will have little impact if it is removed from the atmosphere as soon as it is emitted.

For the number to have shifted from 200 to 300 means that someone has decided that either carbon dioxide has a shorter mean residence time than previously believed, or that nitrous oxide hangs around longer than they used to think.

I'm surprised if it is the second, because they were learning about new ways nitrous oxide gets removed.

At the surface, microorganisms can pull it back out of the air and reduce it to ammonia, or oxidize it to nitrate.

High above, it gets consumed through oxidation by ozone, with nitric acid as a major product.

A specific mechanism has been identified whereby this either brings about MORE ozone loss, OR prevents additional ozone loss, depending on how long the nitric acid ice crystals remain suspended.

If the nitric acid crystal just acts as a magnet upon which ozone destroying agents adsorbed, but then pulls them down toward the surface before they have time to react with much ozone, it causes short term ozone loss but then allows for robust recovery as fewer ozone destroying agents are available.

If that nitric acid ice hangs out for a long time before falling, it could be facilitating more ozone destruction than would occur in their absence.

While the simple calculation presented above suggests that nitrous oxide was doing 7% of the about of the anthropogenic global warming (not ozone destruction related), the number in the textbooks used to be more like 16%.

But I've never heard of a mechanism through which carbon dioxide could be protecting the ozone layer. Well, maybe one.

If carbon dioxide is the main gas responsible for global warming and associated stratospheric COOLING, which now permits temperatures cold enough to freeze nitric acid, maybe that how CO2 protects the ozone?

You will get a Nobel prize if you can show a plausible mechanism for CO2 protecting the ozone layer via some direct chemical interaction.

What mechanism do you propose?
07-06-2023 04:48
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Lignin is a carbohydrate.
It is a carbohydrate, just like plant based alcohols are.


How can someone with no formal training in chemistry find out if this assertion is absurd?

The quickest way would be to use an Internet search engine with the question:

"Is lignin a carbohydrate"

The answer is unambiguous and unanimous.

If you want to go deeper might ask:

"What is the difference between lignin and carbohydrate?"

But you will find it swamped with references to "lignin-carbohydrate complexes", rather than something that just distinguishes the two definitions.

Still, this is very revealing. A lignin-carbohydrate complex forms from two different materials combining. As if they were not the same to begin with.

You could check simply:
"definition of carbohydrate" and "definition of lignin".
Even without any chemistry training you will see obvious differences.
For example, for lignin you will see terms like "aromatic" and "phenyl" which are never used in the carbohydrate definitions.

You could check simply:
"chemical formula for carbohydrate" and "chemical formula for lignin"
Even with no training, you can see they are quite different.
All the carbohydrates have hydrogen-to-oxygen ratio of 2:1
In most lignins, it is closer to 3:1
Nearly all the carbohydrates have hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of 2:1
In most lignins, it is closer to 1:1

You could look up:
"chemical structure for carbohydrate" and "chemical structure for lignin"
Even with no training, they do not look very similar.
The lignin is full of hexagons with circles inside them. No carbohydrates do.
The hexagons are the "aromatic" (benzene ring) par of lignin.
Carbohydrates may have hexagons, but no circles inside. Not aromatic. Ever.

The absurd assertion that lignin is a carbohydrate can be falsified by just about anyone who knows how to use Internet search engines.

Or by anyone who actually studied chemistry in the real world
07-06-2023 04:49
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
Lignin is not a carbohydrate and it is a fiber that is not sugar, but rather a saccharide, consisting of long chains of phenolic resin alcohols connected along an oversized advanced molecule. As plants mature, their cell walls increase in lignin concentration, leading to a tough, stringy texture.

PS. Can you now explain how you believe that you can lock people into paradoxes by means of your obvious trolling?

PSS. You may now resume choking your chicken




This definition of lignin is partially correct.

However, if lignin were a saccharide, that would make it a carbohydrate.

Phenolic resin alcohols isn't too far off.

Lignins are polymers of aromatic alcohols (phenols) with aliphatic interlinks.

Carbohydrates are purely aliphatic. Also, carbs have strictly single bonded links between all atoms. Lignin and polyphenols have mainly double bonded carbons.

Next we'll get into how much lignin is like polyphenol.

That is what makes lignin significant for carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling, with important implications for climate change.
07-06-2023 04:50
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
Lignin is not a carbohydrate

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
Swan wrote:
and it is a fiber

Lignin is not fibrous.
Swan wrote:
that is not sugar,

It is not a sugar. Sugar, however, is also a carbohydrate.
Swan wrote:
but rather a saccharide, consisting of long chains of phenolic resin alcohols connected along an oversized advanced molecule.

Define 'advanced molecule'.
Swan wrote:
As plants mature, their cell walls increase in lignin concentration,

Plant cell walls don't contain lignin.
Swan wrote:
leading to a tough, stringy texture.

Lignin is not fibrous.
Swan wrote:
PS. Can you now explain how you believe that you can lock people into paradoxes by means of your obvious trolling?

You lock yourself into your own paradoxes. They are YOUR problem. Only YOU can do something about them.
Swan wrote:
PSS. You may now resume choking your chicken

I take better care of my chickens than that.




As the stupid word games make clear, trolls have never studied chemistry in the real world.

Look up the definition for carbohydrate, and you will find the term "saccharide".

Parrot Boy wouldn't know that. He could have won the debate by quoting Snarky's incorrect claim that lignin is a saccharide.

But all he knows is how to play word games and make contrarian assertions.

Deny that lignin is found in cell walls, and try to make it about "fibrous" somehow. Kind of like "amphibious" versus the actual definition of amphibian.

And this thread is completely covered in troll feces now.

Would have been nice to try to discuss the topic.

Lignin comes in second after polyphenol as the chemical that most regulates carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling.

By some definitions, lignin IS a polyphenol. Most of its molecular weight arises from its phenolic (aromatic alcohol) rings.

But polyphenols, also known as tannins or tannic acid, are defined not just by the phenols but also the acid. Polyphenols are carboxylic acids, which lignins are not. Benzoic acid is another word for it when the carboxylic acid group is attached to a benzene ring, as it is in polyphenols. But that benzene ring is also an alcohol (phenol)

Meanwhile, Parrot Boy STILL makes the absurd anti scientific assertion that lignin is a carbohydrate. Yet doesn't even know what a saccharide is.
07-06-2023 04:51
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.
[quote]



MYSTERY SOLVED!

Since "the entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins."

And since lignin is NOT a protein.

Lignin HAS to be a carbohydrate. Like every other non protein compound found in plants. They are ALL carbohydrates, according to the infallible expert in science.

We are so lucky to have a plant chemistry expert such as Parrot Boy to enlighten us
07-06-2023 04:52
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 04:53
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
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.
[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.
07-06-2023 04:54
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
]Into the Night wrote:.

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.
07-06-2023 04:55
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 04:56
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[/quote]

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...[/quote]


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

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.
07-06-2023 04:57
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 04:58
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 04:59
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 04:59
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Needless to say, they acknowledge my scientific discoveries with a citation.

[quote]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.
07-06-2023 05:01
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 05:02
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
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:
[quote](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.
07-06-2023 05:03
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[/quote]

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'.[/quote]

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

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.
07-06-2023 05:04
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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
07-06-2023 05:05
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 05:06
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 05:07
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 05:07
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
[quote]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.
07-06-2023 05:09
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
sealover wrote:
[quote]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.



She knows I'm interested in sustainable farming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TybAdt9d87w&t=10s
And where she is a Montana farmer, what will help farmers like her and her family to adapt? With Montana, their needs might be different than other regions. With organic material, treated waste qualifies. It's compost, right?
With her, she knows if I can show the IPCC overlooked an important part of its own climate research I will be focused on helping farmers. And with me, I can easily consider the mineral composition of the soil and what organic matter that allows for. With her farm we use the term Sustainable Farming.
I have let her know that we don't know what warming might cause but there is a way that might give us an idea.
07-06-2023 06:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
sealover wrote:
Nitrous oxide has about 200 times as much global warming potential as CO2.

How can either of these gasses warm the planet when neither are an energy source? Please explain the process where nitrous or CO2 is converted to thermal energy. Thanks.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
07-06-2023 19:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
sealover wrote:
Rather than being net emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere, farm soils could be a major net sink to sequester CO2 and transform it into soil organic matter.

What's wrong with CO2? Farms could not exist without it!


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
07-06-2023 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
sealover wrote:
Parrot Boy makes the absurd assertion that lignin is a carbohydrate.

Lignin is a carbohydrate, no matter how absurd you think that is. You obviously have no idea what a carbohydrate is.
sealover wrote:
An easily debunked falsehood.

Attempted proof by tautology.
sealover wrote:
But carbon cycling is far more pertinent to climate change than the organic chemistry definitions for carbohydrate versus lignin.

Climate cannot change. There is nothing that can change. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. Climate has no values associated with it.
sealover wrote:
Parrot Boy keeps insisting that there is no such thing as organic carbon.

Carbon is not organic. I will continue to insist on that. It's an element.
sealover wrote:
Apparently, there is a major field of chemistry based on a buzzword.

There is no 'major field of chemistry' called carbon.
sealover wrote:
It matters to discussion of depletion of the sea's alkalinity, because inorganic carbon (bicarbonate and carbonate) provides the overwhelming majority of the acid neutralizing capacity, which is synonymous with alkalinity. At the same time, the third form of inorganic carbon, carbon dioxide, is the dominant source of acidity causing ocean "acidification" (a very bad misnomer for depletion of alkalinity while pH remains well above 7).

You cannot acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
It matters to discussion of global warming,

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
because the transformation of organic carbon to inorganic carbon,

Carbon isn't organic. There is no transformation possible.
sealover wrote:
as fossil fuel is combusted with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils do not burn. Carbon dioxide has no capability to warm the Earth.
sealover wrote:
is the dominant source of additional (beyond historic norms) greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.

Not possible. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has this magick property to falsify the 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are STILL ignoring.


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
07-06-2023 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
sealover wrote:
"The 2015/2016 Artic winter was one of the coldest stratospheric winters in recent years."

Winter is not a layer in the atmosphere. It is not possible to measure the global temperature of the stratosphere.
sealover wrote:
While surface temperatures were setting new records for the warmest years, the stratosphere was setting new records for coldest winters.

It is not possible to measure global temperature of the surface either.
sealover wrote:
When the stratosphere gets cold enough, tiny droplets of liquid nitric acid can freeze and fall toward the surface. This is called "denitrification".

What nitric acid?
sealover wrote:
With a very powerful oxidant such as ozone around, nitrous oxide can oxidize to form nitric acid, taking ozone out in the process.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
sealover wrote:
With stratospheric temperatures setting new records for COLD winters,

You cannot decrease entropy. It is not possible to measure global stratospheric temperature. Winter is not a layer in the atmosphere.
sealover wrote:
nitric acid gets more opportunities to freeze. Other ozone destroying agents get caught up in the nitric acid ice crystals as they form.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
sealover wrote:
By some accounts, THIS is what has enabled the ozone layer to recover.

The ozone layer did not need to 'recover'. It cannot be destroyed.


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
07-06-2023 19:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
sealover wrote:
Yes, nitrous oxide is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than methane or carbon dioxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
Problem with assigning a number like 300 is it has to account for both the inherent capacity of the molecule to absorb and reemit infrared light AND its residence time in the atmosphere.

There is no 'residence time'. You cannot cancel the Stefan-Boltzmann law for ANY length of time. There is no sequence.
sealover wrote:
Back to stratospheric denitrification, because nitrous oxide does more than just act as a greenhouse gas.

Not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
When ozone oxidizes nitrous oxide, causing some ozone loss in the process, some of it becomes nitric acid.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
sealover wrote:
It has been 20 years since I last got paid to research nitrous oxide in the Ivory Tower, and at that time the jury was still out regarding the net impact.

No impact. The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
sealover wrote:
When the nitric acid freezes in the stratosphere, it creates a solid surface that can adsorb ozone destroying agents on its surface.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
sealover wrote:
These include the many combinations of sulfur and oxygen (SOx), other NOx's, and non-CFC compounds of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, and iodine.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed by any of these compounds.
sealover wrote:
Once adsorbed to the surface of a solid suspended particle, they create a stationary target for collision with ozone molecules.

Molecules collide regardless of state. There is no 'stationary target'. Now you are ignoring the Theory of Relativity.
sealover wrote:
Whereas two free floating gas molecules are most likely to bounce off each other in an elastic collision, hitting a stationary target where one of them can't bounce away is far more likely to permit overlap of outer electron shells and rearrangement of chemical bonds.

No. Molecules collide and even interact regardless of state.
sealover wrote:
One school of thought was that this facilitated a lot of ozone destruction.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, if that stationary target cannot stay suspended and falls toward the earth, it carries the adsorbed ozone-destroying agents away with it.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
sealover wrote:
One school of thought was that this is what minimized ozone destruction and accounted for the observed recovery.

There is no 'recovery'. The ozone layer was never damaged. It is not possible to damage or destroy it.
sealover wrote:
The unknown variable was how long do the nitric acid crystals stay suspended before they fall out during denitrification.

Do they have enough time suspended as a stationary target to do more harm than good?

There is no such thing as a 'stationary' target. You are ignoring the Theory of Relativity again.
sealover wrote:
Human activity is responsible for a lot more nitrous oxide entering the atmosphere. Whether as a direct result of fossil fuel combustion

Fossils don't combust.
sealover wrote:
and fertilizer synthesis,

Fixating nitrogen does not release nitrogen.
sealover wrote:
or an indirect result of excess agricultural nitrogen providing nitrate for microbial nitrate reduction and by product generation of nitrous oxide.

Fixating nitrogen does not release nitrogen.
sealover wrote:
Some of us were wondering if by lucky accident, nitrous oxide was actually protecting the ozone layer and allowing it to recover

The ozone layer was never damaged. There is no 'recovery'.


It is not possible to damage or destroy the ozone layer.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


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
07-06-2023 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
sealover wrote:
I was surprised to see EPA saying nitrous oxide has 300 times as much global warming potential as CO2.

300 times zero is still zero.
sealover wrote:
The people I knew who were researching it were estimating about 200, but that was more than 10 years ago.

200 times zero is still zero.
sealover wrote:
The easy part is to use spectroscopy in a lab and compare carbon dioxide to nitrous oxide.

Absorption of infrared light emitted from Earth does not warm the Earth
sealover wrote:
That will tell you, gram per gram or mole per mole, how much more capable nitrous oxide is compared to carbon dioxide to absorb and emit infrared.

No, it doesn't. Obviously, you know nothing about frequency bands.
sealover wrote:
You can get an exact answer out to the tenth decimal place.

But the hard part is to know how long the gases remain in the atmosphere.

Irrelevant. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
sealover wrote:
To calculate global warming potential (GWP), you have to have a mean residence time for the gas in the air.

Irrelevant. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
sealover wrote:
An incredibly powerful greenhouse gas will have little impact if it is removed from the atmosphere as soon as it is emitted.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot decrease entropy...ever.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
sealover wrote:
If that nitric acid ice hangs out for a long time before falling, it could be facilitating more ozone destruction than would occur in their absence.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
sealover wrote:
While the simple calculation presented above suggests that nitrous oxide was doing 7% of the about of the anthropogenic global warming (not ozone destruction related), the number in the textbooks used to be more like 16%.

The ozone layer is not being destroyed. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
sealover wrote:
But I've never heard of a mechanism through which carbon dioxide could be protecting the ozone layer. Well, maybe one.

Carbon dioxide does not protect the ozone layer. It doesn't need 'protecting'. It is not possible to damage it or destroy it.
sealover wrote:
If carbon dioxide is the main gas responsible for global warming and associated stratospheric COOLING, which now permits temperatures cold enough to freeze nitric acid, maybe that how CO2 protects the ozone?

No gas or vapor has the capability to destroy energy into nothing either.
sealover wrote:
You will get a Nobel prize if you can show a plausible mechanism for CO2 protecting the ozone layer via some direct chemical interaction.

CO2 does not protect the ozone layer. It doesn't need 'protecting'. CO2 does not react with ozone.


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
07-06-2023 20:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lignin is a carbohydrate.
It is a carbohydrate, just like plant based alcohols are.

How can someone with no formal training in chemistry find out if this assertion is absurd?

Learn chemistry. Chemistry is not 'formal training'.
sealover wrote:
The quickest way would be to use an Internet search engine with the question:

The Internet is not a proof.
sealover wrote:
All the carbohydrates have hydrogen-to-oxygen ratio of 2:1

There is no ratio.
sealover wrote:
Carbohydrates may have hexagons, but no circles inside. Not aromatic. Ever.

There is no limit on structure.
sealover wrote:
The absurd assertion that lignin is a carbohydrate can be falsified by just about anyone who knows how to use Internet search engines.

Attempted proof by Google.
sealover wrote:
Or by anyone who actually studied chemistry in the real world

Chemistry isn't a 'study' or 'formal training'.
You obviously have no idea what a carbohydrate is.


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
07-06-2023 20:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
sealover wrote:
That is what makes lignin significant for carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling, with important implications for climate change.

Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate to change.
No gas or vapor or carbohydrate has the capability to warm the Earth.


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
Page 17 of 21<<<1516171819>>>





Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands9623-06-2023 14:49
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'821-06-2023 12:55
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change5216-06-2023 09:44
▲ 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