Our Friend the Beaver: Carbon Sequestration, Alkalinity Generation, and the "Extended" Phenotyp

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Actually beavers cut down and drown trees lessening carbon sequestration just like loggers do.

Now take your meds

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Actually beavers cut down and drown trees lessening carbon sequestration just like loggers do.

Now take your meds

As I wait for the meds to kick in... Ah! Here they come!

Now, where were we?

Yes, carbon sequestration.

When they clear cut upland forests, loggers certainly DO "cut down trees and lessen carbon sequestration."

Those felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain are free to decompose under warm, wet, well-drained conditions that favor aerobic decomposition of organic matter into carbon carbon dioxide.

But what about the vegetation alteration thanks to beaver incisors?

The felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain fall under low oxygen conditions created by beaver engineering.

The underlying soil and all the organic carbon it contains is now waterlogged, impeding entry of oxygen. That organic carbon isn't going anywhere for a while.

ENHANCED carbon sequestration, thanks to the beavers.

What about forests on soils that that can't be engineered into wetlands?

Natural selection has favored carbon sequestration in these upland ecosystems without requiring the assistance of any beavers.

There is a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"

It gets into lots of details, with lots of scientific literature references, about applied biogeochemistry.

There is also a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands"

Furthermore, there is the thread here, titled "Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification"


Both of these threads get into more details about the beaver approach to engineering constructed wetlands.

On well drained upland soils, natural ecosystems have evolved to produce high concentration of polyphenols (a.k.a. "tannins") that dramatically slow the decomposition of organic matter, with the result being increased carbon sequestration.

The impact of polyphenols on carbon sequestration is part of the plant's "extended" phenotype.

Google: "Polyphenols and the 'extended' phenotype"

See "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions.."

The carbon and nutrient cycling dynamics of such natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems, to maximize carbon sequestration and to minimize the emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

The author of this thread has published widely cited scientific research into how polyphenols maximize carbon sequestration and minimize nitrous oxide emission.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Actually beavers cut down and drown trees lessening carbon sequestration just like loggers do.

Now take your meds

As I wait for the meds to kick in... Ah! Here they come!

Now, where were we?

Yes, carbon sequestration.

When they clear cut upland forests, loggers certainly DO "cut down trees and lessen carbon sequestration."

Those felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain are free to decompose under warm, wet, well-drained conditions that favor aerobic decomposition of organic matter into carbon carbon dioxide.

But what about the vegetation alteration thanks to beaver incisors?

The felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain fall under low oxygen conditions created by beaver engineering.

The underlying soil and all the organic carbon it contains is now waterlogged, impeding entry of oxygen. That organic carbon isn't going anywhere for a while.

ENHANCED carbon sequestration, thanks to the beavers.

What about forests on soils that that can't be engineered into wetlands?

Natural selection has favored carbon sequestration in these upland ecosystems without requiring the assistance of any beavers.

There is a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"

It gets into lots of details, with lots of scientific literature references, about applied biogeochemistry.

There is also a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands"

Furthermore, there is the thread here, titled "Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification"


Both of these threads get into more details about the beaver approach to engineering constructed wetlands.

On well drained upland soils, natural ecosystems have evolved to produce high concentration of polyphenols (a.k.a. "tannins") that dramatically slow the decomposition of organic matter, with the result being increased carbon sequestration.

The impact of polyphenols on carbon sequestration is part of the plant's "extended" phenotype.

Google: "Polyphenols and the 'extended' phenotype"

See "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions.."

The carbon and nutrient cycling dynamics of such natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems, to maximize carbon sequestration and to minimize the emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

The author of this thread has published widely cited scientific research into how polyphenols maximize carbon sequestration and minimize nitrous oxide emission.

So when loggers cut down trees it's bad but when beavers do the same thing this is good. Beavers do not create ecosystems, they destroy them by drowning entire valleys full of trees which is a form of deforestation drowning entire families of rabbits and groundhogs. The beaver dam also drives salmon and trout to extinction by damming migratory fish routes The only thing that beavers are good for is making a sperm deposit

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Actually beavers cut down and drown trees lessening carbon sequestration just like loggers do.

Now take your meds

As I wait for the meds to kick in... Ah! Here they come!

Now, where were we?

Yes, carbon sequestration.

When they clear cut upland forests, loggers certainly DO "cut down trees and lessen carbon sequestration."

Those felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain are free to decompose under warm, wet, well-drained conditions that favor aerobic decomposition of organic matter into carbon carbon dioxide.

But what about the vegetation alteration thanks to beaver incisors?

The felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain fall under low oxygen conditions created by beaver engineering.

The underlying soil and all the organic carbon it contains is now waterlogged, impeding entry of oxygen. That organic carbon isn't going anywhere for a while.

ENHANCED carbon sequestration, thanks to the beavers.

What about forests on soils that that can't be engineered into wetlands?

Natural selection has favored carbon sequestration in these upland ecosystems without requiring the assistance of any beavers.

There is a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"

It gets into lots of details, with lots of scientific literature references, about applied biogeochemistry.

There is also a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands"

Furthermore, there is the thread here, titled "Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification"


Both of these threads get into more details about the beaver approach to engineering constructed wetlands.

On well drained upland soils, natural ecosystems have evolved to produce high concentration of polyphenols (a.k.a. "tannins") that dramatically slow the decomposition of organic matter, with the result being increased carbon sequestration.

The impact of polyphenols on carbon sequestration is part of the plant's "extended" phenotype.

Google: "Polyphenols and the 'extended' phenotype"

See "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions.."

The carbon and nutrient cycling dynamics of such natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems, to maximize carbon sequestration and to minimize the emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

The author of this thread has published widely cited scientific research into how polyphenols maximize carbon sequestration and minimize nitrous oxide emission.

So when loggers cut down trees it's bad but when beavers do the same thing this is good. Beavers do not create ecosystems, they destroy them by drowning entire valleys full of trees which is a form of deforestation drowning entire families of rabbits and groundhogs. The beaver dam also drives salmon and trout to extinction by damming migratory fish routes The only thing that beavers are good for is making a sperm deposit

Before the liberals put a stop to it, there was a pretty effective beaver eradication campaign carried out in many parts of the United States.

Many watersheds were protected from beaver damage by the heroic trappers.

Come to think of it...

Didn't something happen to get someone so upset they insisted on protecting those damn beavers damming it up with their damn dams?

The radical left WANTS those beavers to go ahead and devastate the environment, in order to advance their sinister agenda.

And not everybody appreciated the increased flood damage from the watersheds where the evil beasts had been eradicated.

Come to think of it, they also made up some ridiculous story about water flows during the DRY season actually being BETTER if beavers effed everything up with their damn dams.

Will those radical leftist environmental freaks EVER stop lying?

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Actually beavers cut down and drown trees lessening carbon sequestration just like loggers do.

Now take your meds

As I wait for the meds to kick in... Ah! Here they come!

Now, where were we?

Yes, carbon sequestration.

When they clear cut upland forests, loggers certainly DO "cut down trees and lessen carbon sequestration."

Those felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain are free to decompose under warm, wet, well-drained conditions that favor aerobic decomposition of organic matter into carbon carbon dioxide.

But what about the vegetation alteration thanks to beaver incisors?

The felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain fall under low oxygen conditions created by beaver engineering.

The underlying soil and all the organic carbon it contains is now waterlogged, impeding entry of oxygen. That organic carbon isn't going anywhere for a while.

ENHANCED carbon sequestration, thanks to the beavers.

What about forests on soils that that can't be engineered into wetlands?

Natural selection has favored carbon sequestration in these upland ecosystems without requiring the assistance of any beavers.

There is a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"

It gets into lots of details, with lots of scientific literature references, about applied biogeochemistry.

There is also a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands"

Furthermore, there is the thread here, titled "Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification"


Both of these threads get into more details about the beaver approach to engineering constructed wetlands.

On well drained upland soils, natural ecosystems have evolved to produce high concentration of polyphenols (a.k.a. "tannins") that dramatically slow the decomposition of organic matter, with the result being increased carbon sequestration.

The impact of polyphenols on carbon sequestration is part of the plant's "extended" phenotype.

Google: "Polyphenols and the 'extended' phenotype"

See "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions.."

The carbon and nutrient cycling dynamics of such natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems, to maximize carbon sequestration and to minimize the emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

The author of this thread has published widely cited scientific research into how polyphenols maximize carbon sequestration and minimize nitrous oxide emission.

So when loggers cut down trees it's bad but when beavers do the same thing this is good. Beavers do not create ecosystems, they destroy them by drowning entire valleys full of trees which is a form of deforestation drowning entire families of rabbits and groundhogs. The beaver dam also drives salmon and trout to extinction by damming migratory fish routes The only thing that beavers are good for is making a sperm deposit

Before the liberals put a stop to it, there was a pretty effective beaver eradication campaign carried out in many parts of the United States.

Many watersheds were protected from beaver damage by the heroic trappers.

Come to think of it...

Didn't something happen to get someone so upset they insisted on protecting those damn beavers damming it up with their damn dams?

The radical left WANTS those beavers to go ahead and devastate the environment, in order to advance their sinister agenda.

And not everybody appreciated the increased flood damage from the watersheds where the evil beasts had been eradicated.

Come to think of it, they also made up some ridiculous story about water flows during the DRY season actually being BETTER if beavers effed everything up with their damn dams.

Will those radical leftist environmental freaks EVER stop lying?

I am positive that your Obamacare covers your issues

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Actually beavers cut down and drown trees lessening carbon sequestration just like loggers do.

Now take your meds

As I wait for the meds to kick in... Ah! Here they come!

Now, where were we?

Yes, carbon sequestration.

When they clear cut upland forests, loggers certainly DO "cut down trees and lessen carbon sequestration."

Those felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain are free to decompose under warm, wet, well-drained conditions that favor aerobic decomposition of organic matter into carbon carbon dioxide.

But what about the vegetation alteration thanks to beaver incisors?

The felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain fall under low oxygen conditions created by beaver engineering.

The underlying soil and all the organic carbon it contains is now waterlogged, impeding entry of oxygen. That organic carbon isn't going anywhere for a while.

ENHANCED carbon sequestration, thanks to the beavers.

What about forests on soils that that can't be engineered into wetlands?

Natural selection has favored carbon sequestration in these upland ecosystems without requiring the assistance of any beavers.

There is a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"

It gets into lots of details, with lots of scientific literature references, about applied biogeochemistry.

There is also a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands"

Furthermore, there is the thread here, titled "Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification"


Both of these threads get into more details about the beaver approach to engineering constructed wetlands.

On well drained upland soils, natural ecosystems have evolved to produce high concentration of polyphenols (a.k.a. "tannins") that dramatically slow the decomposition of organic matter, with the result being increased carbon sequestration.

The impact of polyphenols on carbon sequestration is part of the plant's "extended" phenotype.

Google: "Polyphenols and the 'extended' phenotype"

See "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions.."

The carbon and nutrient cycling dynamics of such natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems, to maximize carbon sequestration and to minimize the emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

The author of this thread has published widely cited scientific research into how polyphenols maximize carbon sequestration and minimize nitrous oxide emission.

So when loggers cut down trees it's bad but when beavers do the same thing this is good. Beavers do not create ecosystems, they destroy them by drowning entire valleys full of trees which is a form of deforestation drowning entire families of rabbits and groundhogs. The beaver dam also drives salmon and trout to extinction by damming migratory fish routes The only thing that beavers are good for is making a sperm deposit

Before the liberals put a stop to it, there was a pretty effective beaver eradication campaign carried out in many parts of the United States.

Many watersheds were protected from beaver damage by the heroic trappers.

Come to think of it...

Didn't something happen to get someone so upset they insisted on protecting those damn beavers damming it up with their damn dams?

The radical left WANTS those beavers to go ahead and devastate the environment, in order to advance their sinister agenda.

And not everybody appreciated the increased flood damage from the watersheds where the evil beasts had been eradicated.

Come to think of it, they also made up some ridiculous story about water flows during the DRY season actually being BETTER if beavers effed everything up with their damn dams.

Will those radical leftist environmental freaks EVER stop lying?

I am positive that your Obamacare covers your issues

Beavers cannot speak for themselves, so I shall attempt to speak in their behalf.

The beavers want you to know that they are not trying to model some way of reducing the quantity of fossil fuel being used by humanity.

The beavers are not asking anyone to stop using fossil fuel.

The beavers aren't even advocating for any kind of "carbon tax".

The beavers just want us to learn from their example, and work WITH Nature instead of against her on this one.

They show us a way to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and neutralize the acid that our activities add to the sea.

You can have your fuel and use it too, as far as the beavers are concerned.

They're just trying to teach us a very inexpensive way to get the benefits of reduced fossil fuel use, without having to fight with anyone on fossil fuel itself.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Actually beavers cut down and drown trees lessening carbon sequestration just like loggers do.

Now take your meds

As I wait for the meds to kick in... Ah! Here they come!

Now, where were we?

Yes, carbon sequestration.

When they clear cut upland forests, loggers certainly DO "cut down trees and lessen carbon sequestration."

Those felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain are free to decompose under warm, wet, well-drained conditions that favor aerobic decomposition of organic matter into carbon carbon dioxide.

But what about the vegetation alteration thanks to beaver incisors?

The felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain fall under low oxygen conditions created by beaver engineering.

The underlying soil and all the organic carbon it contains is now waterlogged, impeding entry of oxygen. That organic carbon isn't going anywhere for a while.

ENHANCED carbon sequestration, thanks to the beavers.

What about forests on soils that that can't be engineered into wetlands?

Natural selection has favored carbon sequestration in these upland ecosystems without requiring the assistance of any beavers.

There is a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"

It gets into lots of details, with lots of scientific literature references, about applied biogeochemistry.

There is also a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands"

Furthermore, there is the thread here, titled "Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification"


Both of these threads get into more details about the beaver approach to engineering constructed wetlands.

On well drained upland soils, natural ecosystems have evolved to produce high concentration of polyphenols (a.k.a. "tannins") that dramatically slow the decomposition of organic matter, with the result being increased carbon sequestration.

The impact of polyphenols on carbon sequestration is part of the plant's "extended" phenotype.

Google: "Polyphenols and the 'extended' phenotype"

See "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions.."

The carbon and nutrient cycling dynamics of such natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems, to maximize carbon sequestration and to minimize the emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

The author of this thread has published widely cited scientific research into how polyphenols maximize carbon sequestration and minimize nitrous oxide emission.

So when loggers cut down trees it's bad but when beavers do the same thing this is good. Beavers do not create ecosystems, they destroy them by drowning entire valleys full of trees which is a form of deforestation drowning entire families of rabbits and groundhogs. The beaver dam also drives salmon and trout to extinction by damming migratory fish routes The only thing that beavers are good for is making a sperm deposit

Before the liberals put a stop to it, there was a pretty effective beaver eradication campaign carried out in many parts of the United States.

Many watersheds were protected from beaver damage by the heroic trappers.

Come to think of it...

Didn't something happen to get someone so upset they insisted on protecting those damn beavers damming it up with their damn dams?

The radical left WANTS those beavers to go ahead and devastate the environment, in order to advance their sinister agenda.

And not everybody appreciated the increased flood damage from the watersheds where the evil beasts had been eradicated.

Come to think of it, they also made up some ridiculous story about water flows during the DRY season actually being BETTER if beavers effed everything up with their damn dams.

Will those radical leftist environmental freaks EVER stop lying?

I am positive that your Obamacare covers your issues

Beavers cannot speak for themselves, so I shall attempt to speak in their behalf.

The beavers want you to know that they are not trying to model some way of reducing the quantity of fossil fuel being used by humanity.

The beavers are not asking anyone to stop using fossil fuel.

The beavers aren't even advocating for any kind of "carbon tax".

The beavers just want us to learn from their example, and work WITH Nature instead of against her on this one.

They show us a way to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and neutralize the acid that our activities add to the sea.

You can have your fuel and use it too, as far as the beavers are concerned.

They're just trying to teach us a very inexpensive way to get the benefits of reduced fossil fuel use, without having to fight with anyone on fossil fuel itself.

Have you tried mixing grain alcohol and Thorazine?

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Actually beavers cut down and drown trees lessening carbon sequestration just like loggers do.

Now take your meds

As I wait for the meds to kick in... Ah! Here they come!

Now, where were we?

Yes, carbon sequestration.

When they clear cut upland forests, loggers certainly DO "cut down trees and lessen carbon sequestration."

Those felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain are free to decompose under warm, wet, well-drained conditions that favor aerobic decomposition of organic matter into carbon carbon dioxide.

But what about the vegetation alteration thanks to beaver incisors?

The felled trees and all the organic carbon they contain fall under low oxygen conditions created by beaver engineering.

The underlying soil and all the organic carbon it contains is now waterlogged, impeding entry of oxygen. That organic carbon isn't going anywhere for a while.

ENHANCED carbon sequestration, thanks to the beavers.

What about forests on soils that that can't be engineered into wetlands?

Natural selection has favored carbon sequestration in these upland ecosystems without requiring the assistance of any beavers.

There is a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems"

It gets into lots of details, with lots of scientific literature references, about applied biogeochemistry.

There is also a thread here, titled "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands"

Furthermore, there is the thread here, titled "Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification"


Both of these threads get into more details about the beaver approach to engineering constructed wetlands.

On well drained upland soils, natural ecosystems have evolved to produce high concentration of polyphenols (a.k.a. "tannins") that dramatically slow the decomposition of organic matter, with the result being increased carbon sequestration.

The impact of polyphenols on carbon sequestration is part of the plant's "extended" phenotype.

Google: "Polyphenols and the 'extended' phenotype"

See "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions.."

The carbon and nutrient cycling dynamics of such natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems, to maximize carbon sequestration and to minimize the emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

The author of this thread has published widely cited scientific research into how polyphenols maximize carbon sequestration and minimize nitrous oxide emission.

So when loggers cut down trees it's bad but when beavers do the same thing this is good. Beavers do not create ecosystems, they destroy them by drowning entire valleys full of trees which is a form of deforestation drowning entire families of rabbits and groundhogs. The beaver dam also drives salmon and trout to extinction by damming migratory fish routes The only thing that beavers are good for is making a sperm deposit

Before the liberals put a stop to it, there was a pretty effective beaver eradication campaign carried out in many parts of the United States.

Many watersheds were protected from beaver damage by the heroic trappers.

Come to think of it...

Didn't something happen to get someone so upset they insisted on protecting those damn beavers damming it up with their damn dams?

The radical left WANTS those beavers to go ahead and devastate the environment, in order to advance their sinister agenda.

And not everybody appreciated the increased flood damage from the watersheds where the evil beasts had been eradicated.

Come to think of it, they also made up some ridiculous story about water flows during the DRY season actually being BETTER if beavers effed everything up with their damn dams.

Will those radical leftist environmental freaks EVER stop lying?

I am positive that your Obamacare covers your issues

Beavers cannot speak for themselves, so I shall attempt to speak in their behalf.

The beavers want you to know that they are not trying to model some way of reducing the quantity of fossil fuel being used by humanity.

The beavers are not asking anyone to stop using fossil fuel.

The beavers aren't even advocating for any kind of "carbon tax".

The beavers just want us to learn from their example, and work WITH Nature instead of against her on this one.

They show us a way to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and neutralize the acid that our activities add to the sea.

You can have your fuel and use it too, as far as the beavers are concerned.

They're just trying to teach us a very inexpensive way to get the benefits of reduced fossil fuel use, without having to fight with anyone on fossil fuel itself.

Have you tried mixing grain alcohol and Thorazine?

And with grain alcohol, we come full circle back to the "extended" phenotype.

The genotype of many bacteria and fungi program their phenotype to ferment carbohydrate into ethyl alcohol, ethanol, or grain alcohol.

Getting people drunk is part of the microorganism's "extended" phenotype.

The fitness imparted in natural selection has favored these microorganisms because their "extended" phenotype includes getting people drunk. Brewer's yeast, for example, has greatly increased its global biomass beyond its natural niche because its "extended" phenotype is to alter human consciousness.

The reproductive success of cannabis has similarly been greatly enhanced because the cannabis genotype programs for a phenotype that synthesizes a compound that gets people high.

Marijuana's "extended" phenotype includes the capacity to alter human consciousness with adaptive value fitness benefits for its reproductive success. Global biomass of marijuana is much greater than it would be if the plant were still limited to its natural niche as a creator of monospecific thickets on recently disturbed and relatively fertile soils.

The random mutation that created the genotype to produce THC in cannabis imparted a fitness value way beyond simply making it a stronger more competitive plant in the field. The "extended" phenotype of that mutant genotype included a property that would enlist the assistance of another species to guarantee its maximum reproductive success.

The "extended" phenotype of organisms has the capacity to seriously change the climate, in the case of some species.

The archaebacteria whose descendants now produce "cow gas" by combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide under very low oxygen conditions in the cow's rumen...

Those guys brought on some heavy duty climate change, back in the day.

Just over 4000 million years ago, probably, methanogenic bacteria began to provide the cold, young Earth with a badly needed blanket to keep it warmer.

The sun was about a third less luminous in those days than it is today. Most of the liquid water on the Earth's surface was frozen all the time. However, the hot vents where hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide bubble up were a fine place to start.

After doing this for enough million years, the methanogens had added enough methane to the atmosphere to reset the planet's thermostat. Seas began to melt beyond a few pockets along the equator, creating a field for photosynthesis.

And perhaps the cutting edge science point would be to look at the "extended" phenotype beyond obvious direct benefits to the organisms responsible. There was no fitness benefits for the methanogens to alter the climate through their "extended" phenotype. The warm vents where they thrived didn't change in any way to help them, just because they were slowly warming the atmosphere.

And what about the "extended" phenotypes that provide no benefit to the organisms, but harm the reproductive success of some other species somewhere else? Collateral damage in chemical warfare as one species not only allelopathically defeats its competitors, it kills innocent bystanders. One species' medicine is another species' poison.

Humans, so far, have manifest an "extended" phenotype with environmental impacts far and wide. Some of it has been quite favorable, so far, to our reproductive success, as we have dramatically increased our capacity to produce more food for ourselves. Climate change, ocean acidification, acid rain, ozone layer thinning, marine "dead zones", coral bleaching, extreme weather and wildfires... It could all be construed as part of our "extended" phenotype.

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

All the effects that a gene has upon the world can be considered part of the organism's phenotype. The "extended" phenotype looks beyond just the physical body of the organism itself, and considers all the impacts in the world that arise from the genotype.

Iron reducing bacteria have a deadly "extended" phenotype that doesn't even benefit their reproductive success.

Where old mercury mines have left downstream sediment deposits of mercury-bearing iron floc, iron reducing bacteria in a mountain wetland can poison tuna fish in the ocean with methyl mercury.

Mercury alone, as metallic mercury or inorganic mercury ions, is poisonous enough already.

But when an iron reducing bacteria attaches a methyl group to a mercury atom, it becomes far more toxic, as methyl mercury.

You can hardly blame the bacteria for bad intentions. It was just trying to make a living. It needed some ferric iron to use as terminal electron acceptor, so it could oxidize some organic carbon and get some metabolic energy despite the low oxygen conditions.

Unfortunately, that ferric iron was too often bound to a mercury atom. That mercury was right in the way. The bacteria had to protect itself by methylating the mercury, because it needed to get close to the ferric iron.

Methyl mercury poisoning due to iron reducing bacteria has impacted humans, as well as all the aquatic life up the food chain.

I suppose the bacteria couldn't care less what happens downstream.

Iron reducing bacteria can poison groundwater with arsenic as well.

Literally hundreds of thousands of people in South Asia and Southeast Asia have been seriously injured with arsenic poisoning, thanks to iron reducing bacteria.

Down in the delta groundwater, where nobody should have ever installed a well for drinking water, iron reducing bacteria use ferric iron as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy under low oxygen conditions.

There is very little mercury to methylate down there, but there is plenty of arsenic to be released. Arsenic is bound up in solid form, primarily with oxides/hydroxides of ferric iron. In order to get to the ferric iron for use as oxidant, the bacteria find arsenic, as As(V) arsenate, attached to it. When they reduce the ferric iron(III) to ferrous iron(II), they dissolve the solid compound and release arsenate ion into solution.

But then it gets worse. Another bacteria comes along, an arsenic reducer, and uses the arsenic(V) arsenate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon and get metabolic energy. This transforms the arsenic(V) arsenate into the more soluble and toxic arsenic(III) arsenite.

It doesn't serve any agenda for the iron reducing bacteria's benefit to be putting deadly poison into the environment. Or at least it doesn't help them to be poisoning any other organisms.

But there is no feedback in natural selection to stop iron reducing bacteria from putting deadly poison out into the environment, even if there is no feedback that favors them to do so because it poisons other organisms.

The impacts of an organism's "extended" phenotype can be indiscriminate and far away in space and time from the organism responsible.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

All the effects that a gene has upon the world can be considered part of the organism's phenotype. The "extended" phenotype looks beyond just the physical body of the organism itself, and considers all the impacts in the world that arise from the genotype.

Iron reducing bacteria have a deadly "extended" phenotype that doesn't even benefit their reproductive success.

Where old mercury mines have left downstream sediment deposits of mercury-bearing iron floc, iron reducing bacteria in a mountain wetland can poison tuna fish in the ocean with methyl mercury.

Mercury alone, as metallic mercury or inorganic mercury ions, is poisonous enough already.

But when an iron reducing bacteria attaches a methyl group to a mercury atom, it becomes far more toxic, as methyl mercury.

You can hardly blame the bacteria for bad intentions. It was just trying to make a living. It needed some ferric iron to use as terminal electron acceptor, so it could oxidize some organic carbon and get some metabolic energy despite the low oxygen conditions.

Unfortunately, that ferric iron was too often bound to a mercury atom. That mercury was right in the way. The bacteria had to protect itself by methylating the mercury, because it needed to get close to the ferric iron.

Methyl mercury poisoning due to iron reducing bacteria has impacted humans, as well as all the aquatic life up the food chain.

I suppose the bacteria couldn't care less what happens downstream.

Iron reducing bacteria can poison groundwater with arsenic as well.

Literally hundreds of thousands of people in South Asia and Southeast Asia have been seriously injured with arsenic poisoning, thanks to iron reducing bacteria.

Down in the delta groundwater, where nobody should have ever installed a well for drinking water, iron reducing bacteria use ferric iron as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy under low oxygen conditions.

There is very little mercury to methylate down there, but there is plenty of arsenic to be released. Arsenic is bound up in solid form, primarily with oxides/hydroxides of ferric iron. In order to get to the ferric iron for use as oxidant, the bacteria find arsenic, as As(V) arsenate, attached to it. When they reduce the ferric iron(III) to ferrous iron(II), they dissolve the solid compound and release arsenate ion into solution.

But then it gets worse. Another bacteria comes along, an arsenic reducer, and uses the arsenic(V) arsenate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon and get metabolic energy. This transforms the arsenic(V) arsenate into the more soluble and toxic arsenic(III) arsenite.

It doesn't serve any agenda for the iron reducing bacteria's benefit to be putting deadly poison into the environment. Or at least it doesn't help them to be poisoning any other organisms.

But there is no feedback in natural selection to stop iron reducing bacteria from putting deadly poison out into the environment, even if there is no feedback that favors them to do so because it poisons other organisms.

The impacts of an organism's "extended" phenotype can be indiscriminate and far away in space and time from the organism responsible.

Can you wittle that down to 2 billion words or less?

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

All the effects that a gene has upon the world can be considered part of the organism's phenotype. The "extended" phenotype looks beyond just the physical body of the organism itself, and considers all the impacts in the world that arise from the genotype.

Iron reducing bacteria have a deadly "extended" phenotype that doesn't even benefit their reproductive success.

Where old mercury mines have left downstream sediment deposits of mercury-bearing iron floc, iron reducing bacteria in a mountain wetland can poison tuna fish in the ocean with methyl mercury.

Mercury alone, as metallic mercury or inorganic mercury ions, is poisonous enough already.

But when an iron reducing bacteria attaches a methyl group to a mercury atom, it becomes far more toxic, as methyl mercury.

You can hardly blame the bacteria for bad intentions. It was just trying to make a living. It needed some ferric iron to use as terminal electron acceptor, so it could oxidize some organic carbon and get some metabolic energy despite the low oxygen conditions.

Unfortunately, that ferric iron was too often bound to a mercury atom. That mercury was right in the way. The bacteria had to protect itself by methylating the mercury, because it needed to get close to the ferric iron.

Methyl mercury poisoning due to iron reducing bacteria has impacted humans, as well as all the aquatic life up the food chain.

I suppose the bacteria couldn't care less what happens downstream.

Iron reducing bacteria can poison groundwater with arsenic as well.

Literally hundreds of thousands of people in South Asia and Southeast Asia have been seriously injured with arsenic poisoning, thanks to iron reducing bacteria.

Down in the delta groundwater, where nobody should have ever installed a well for drinking water, iron reducing bacteria use ferric iron as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy under low oxygen conditions.

There is very little mercury to methylate down there, but there is plenty of arsenic to be released. Arsenic is bound up in solid form, primarily with oxides/hydroxides of ferric iron. In order to get to the ferric iron for use as oxidant, the bacteria find arsenic, as As(V) arsenate, attached to it. When they reduce the ferric iron(III) to ferrous iron(II), they dissolve the solid compound and release arsenate ion into solution.

But then it gets worse. Another bacteria comes along, an arsenic reducer, and uses the arsenic(V) arsenate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon and get metabolic energy. This transforms the arsenic(V) arsenate into the more soluble and toxic arsenic(III) arsenite.

It doesn't serve any agenda for the iron reducing bacteria's benefit to be putting deadly poison into the environment. Or at least it doesn't help them to be poisoning any other organisms.

But there is no feedback in natural selection to stop iron reducing bacteria from putting deadly poison out into the environment, even if there is no feedback that favors them to do so because it poisons other organisms.

The impacts of an organism's "extended" phenotype can be indiscriminate and far away in space and time from the organism responsible.

Can you wittle that down to 2 billion words or less?

Yeah, I had to keep my 1995 Nature paper down to 1000 words. That wasn't easy. It was more fun putting together the 32 page paper in 1998 for Biogeochemistry.

Google: "Polyphenols and the 'Extended' Phenotype", and one of the first results it shows is my "Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions" paper.

The "extended" phenotype of PHOTOSYNTHETIC ORGANISMS.

For about 4000 million years now, photosynthetic organisms have been altering the physical and chemical environment through their "extended" phenotype.

There are many different pathways of photosynthesis that have evolved, and only one of them produces oxygen.

NEARLY all pathways of photosynthesis produce a terminal electron acceptor.

In the case of oxygenic photosynthesis, that terminal electron acceptor is oxygen. A powerful oxidant. Such a strong oxidant it could be deadly.

The "extended" phenotype of cyanobacteria and every photosynthetic organism since them who produces oxygen is to put out a powerful terminal electron acceptor (i.e.oxidant) into the environment.

The only photosynthesis that does NOT produce an oxidant was the very first one that evolved. Anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria evolved to take in hydrogen from the environment, and use it as reductant for photosynthesis.

The closest thing to oxidant made in the process is water.

But hydrogen gas was not always available, despite the highly reduced condition of the Earth's crust at the time. A more reliable source of reductant to feed into photosynthesis was hydrogen sulfide.

Anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria evolved to take in hydrogen sulfide as reductant for photosynthesis. The oxidized product of the reaction was sulfate.

Sulfate can be used as a terminal electron acceptor, albeit a weak one.

When there was sufficient hydrogen available, anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that used hydrogen had a big competitive advantage. There was no other reductant that could give such a productive yield for photosynthesis.

But where hydrogen was not available, other photosynthetic bacteria could now compete effectively by using the reliably abundant hydrogen sulfide. And in the process they produced a terminal electron acceptor - sulfate.

By putting sulfate into the environment, anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria created a niche for sulfate reducing bacteria to exploit available organic carbon.

Over a period of more than 2000 million years, the Earth's crust continued its irreversible oxidation, depleting more and more of the reductants such as hydrogen.

Environments were developing where even hydrogen sulfide was not available for use as reductant to feed into photosynthesis.

Evolution then favored new pathways of photosynthesis which, in turn, provided new terminal electron acceptors to the environment. Other organisms could then exploit these as oxidants to get energy from oxidizing organic carbon.

There were places where no more hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide could be found, but arsenic(III) arsenite was available. Bacteria evolved to feed arsenic(III) as reductant into their photosynthesis. The oxidized product was arsenic(V) arsenate. Arsenate is a more powerful terminal electron acceptor than sulfate. Arsenic based anoxygenic photosynthesis created a niche for arsenic reducers to exploit abundantly available organic carbon.

The Earth keeps leaking out all its hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide. And now there are places where neither is available to feed into anoxygenic photosynthesis. Ferrous iron(II) was very widely available, but not quite as productive a photosynthesis yield as using the more rare arsenic.

Bacteria evolved to use ferrous iron(II) as reductant to feed into anoxygenic photosynthesis. The new terminal electron acceptor generated was ferric iron(III). A new niche was created for iron reducing bacteria.

As the Earth loses more and more reductants to become more oxidized, photosynthesis is starting to get desperate. Nitrite could be fed into photosynthesis as reductant. But it would take a WHOLE LOT of voltage to pull it off. The new terminal electron acceptor generated was nitrate. Although not as powerful as oxygen, nitrate is a much stronger oxidant than any of the others so far. A profitable niche was created for nitrate reducing bacteria.

With a high yield oxidant such as nitrate available, a new niche of bacteria could get a lot more bang for the buck when they used it to oxidize organic carbon.

There are still plenty of microsites at this point where the Earth had hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, arsenic(III), ferrous iron(II), and nitrite coming in. But large areas of the sea were becoming reductant "deserts". No photosynthesis was possible if no such reductants could be found.

Well, nitrite based anoxygenic photosynthesis had already evolved a very powerful photosystem. Capable of generating enough voltage to use this weak reductant. It was just one more step to oxygenic photosynthesis.

A mutant photosystem occurred that could take in water molecules and tear them apart. It took a whole lot of voltage. There wasn't a whole lot of energy leftover for photosynthesis when it was done. But it could produce hydrogen from water, and use it for photosynthesis. It also produced oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor. A very powerful terminal electron acceptor.

The first cyanobacteria to do this was able to colonize the reductant "deserts". It didn't get much bang for the buck with the sun energy. A lot of energy got lost just tearing water apart and making oxygen. But that oxygen was a precious resource. The bacteria who could use it would get a very high energy yield from oxidizing organic carbon. Or from oxidizing just about anything else.

With oxygen available, it became possible for the first time for an organism to oxidize ammonium by any reaction other than annamox with nitrate. Oxygen gave higher energy yields for oxidation of hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, arsenic(III), ferrous iron(II) or any other reductant out there.

The "extended" phenotype of nearly all photosynthetic organisms includes the impact of the terminal electron acceptor they produce during photosynthesis.

Plants aren't making oxygen for our benefit. They just need to get some hydrogen for photosynthesis and they have to tear a water molecule apart to get it. That leaves by product oxygen to be discarded. One bacteria's trash is another bacteria's treasure. And humans couldn't live without it. Literally.

Thank you, oxygenic photosynthesis, for the products of your 'extended' phenotype.

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
Our friend the beaver is an ecosystem engineer.

Beavers go out and change the physical conditions of their environment.

Beavers alter the environment in a manner that improves their own reproductive success.

The fitness benefit in natural selection for beavers results from the manner in which they altered their environment through ecosystem engineering.

The beaver dam and the wetland it creates are not part of the beaver's physical body phenotype.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype. Natural selection acts upon the phenotype, which is controlled by the genotype.

In the beaver's case, natural selection is favoring the impact that his dam and wetland have upon his fitness. Dam building is instinctive, controlled by the beaver's genotype.

To account for natural selection acting upon the level of ecosystem engineering by organisms, Richard Dawkins coined the term "extended phenotype".

Our friend the beaver's dam is part of his "extended" phenotype.

As evolutionary biologists elucidate more examples of organisms and their "extended" phenotypes as ecosystem engineers, they tend to focus on those impacts of the gene upon the world that directly benefit the engineers.

That's what matters in natural selection for the genes that make beavers build dams.

But the beaver dam's impact upon the environment extends far beyond the little lives of the beavers themselves.

The beaver dam's role in biogeochemistry brings about changes that do not help or harm the beavers, but certainly have "downstream" impacts.

By creating a wetland, the beaver dam dramatically increases the quantity of carbon sequestered per square meter which remains longer than a year before decomposing.

The waterlogged condition of wetland soil impedes the entry of oxygen. In the absence of aerobic decomposition, organic matter accumulates year after year.

The area impacted by the beaver dam is a net carbon sink, taking much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis than it returns to the atmosphere via respiration and decomposition.

The waterlogged condition of the wetland soil created by the beaver dam permits only low oxygen anaerobic decomposition to occur. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity, as bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions.

Before the beavers built their dam, aerobic decomposition generated carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) product of organic carbon oxidation.

After the beavers engineered the environment to their advantage, anaerobic decomposition generates bicarbonate ion HCO3- or carbonate ion CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation.

The beaver dam increases the amount of alkalinity in the water that flows downstream from the dam. This helps neutralize ocean acidification.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have changed downstream water chemistry.

The beaver dam wetland increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere into stable soil organic matter. This helps counter climate change due to increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was nice of the beavers, but the beavers couldn't care less. It doesn't help them or hurt them if they have slightly altered atmospheric chemistry.

So, the "extended" phenotype of the beaver is to create a new wetland, with all of its biogeochemical impacts for carbon sequestration and alkalinity generation.

The beaver just needed a safe place to live and store food.

Unlike them beavers, us humans could consciously manipulate the impact of our
"extended" phenotype on the environment.

Hexavalent Chromium - The "extended" phenotype of manganese oxidizing bacteria.

Some hexavalent chromium occurs naturally.

Where such naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is found, its presence is due to the "extended" phenotype of manganese oxidizing bacteria.

Chromium is not a rare element. Where I live, there is a lot of it in the soil from rock debris washed down from the Sierras. When natural chromium is dissolved in water, as it often is in small amounts, it is virtually always trivalent chromium.

Trivalent chromium, chromium(III), or Cr3+ is harmless. In fact, we need trace amounts of as a nutrient. I think its needed for co enzymes in glucose metabolism, among other things. Its chemical behavior is very similar to that of trivalent aluminum, Al3+

Trivalent chromium can be oxidized to hexavalent chromium. However, it is not easy to do so. Oxygen isn't a strong enough terminal electron acceptor to pull it off.

So, all that trivalent chromium out there remains benign, so long as no terminal electron acceptors come along that are powerful enough to oxidize it.

And that's where the manganese oxidizing bacteria come in.

They use oxygen to oxidize manganese(II), Mn2+, to manganese(IV), Mn4+.

They make the jet black "desert varnish" seen in places such as the southwest.

During the oxidation of manganese by bacteria, the primary product is manganese(IV). But there are also by products of manganese in more highly oxidized forms. Manganese(VII) is a strong enough terminal electron acceptor to oxidize trivalent chromium into hexavalent chromium.

We don't have a lot of drinking water quality concerns about naturally occurring hexavalent chromium. It is pretty much only found in places that have dried up.

Here is a climate change connection to hexavalent chromium.

When the climate was wetter, a thriving ecosystem constantly added fresh organic matter to the soil. Most of that organic matter decomposed rapidly, but some of remained behind for years as more recalcitrant forms, such as humic acids. Humic acids can bind trivalent chromium and manganese(II) to cation exchange sites, and keep them in place for centuries as stable organometallic complexes.

When the climate got drier, the ecosystem could no longer resupply new organic matter to the soil as it used to. With no new raw material coming in to replace them, the humic acids and the Cr3+ and Mn2+ they contained eventually decomposed. In the process, they released trivalent chromium and manganese(II) into solution at the same time together, and in the presence of oxygen. As manganese oxidizing bacteria took advantage of the manganese released, they produced some highly oxidized manganese(VII) as by product. That manganese(VII) behaved as terminal electron acceptor for abiotic oxidation of trivalent chromium into hexavalent chromium.

I'm having fun with the biogeochemistry of "extended" phenotypes. All the effects of a gene in the world. The manganese oxidizing bacteria's genes have an effect in the world that includes accidentally producing an oxidant powerful enough to generate hexavalent chromium.

Im a BM wrote:
Arsenic Poisoning in the Mekong Delta - TWICE in my lifetime, two different ways.

The "extended" phenotype of iron reducing bacteria includes the release of arsenic into groundwater via reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic.

The arsenic found in groundwater is in the form of inorganic ions, either arsenic(III) arsenite, AsO3(3-), or arsenic(V) arsenate, AsO4(3-).

The first widespread arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta during my lifetime occurred during the US war there.

As part of the "food denial program", the herbicide "Agent blue" was sprayed from aircraft on to rice paddies. The plan was to starve out the enemy by killing his crops. "Agent blue" was cacodylic acid, (CH3)2As(O)OH. This is an "organic" arsenic compound, with two organic methyl groups attached. It is not ever found in groundwater. It was very effective at killing the rice crops. And it also killed a lot of people who unknowingly consumed this tasteless, odorless, colorless deadly poison.

That was in the 1960s and 1970s.

More than a generation later, some of the very same villages where people were poisoned from arsenic sprayed down from above now had a lot of people sick with arsenic drawn up from a well.

It had never happened before because nobody ever installed shallow tube wells to get drinking water there before. In the interest of public health protection, well meaning individuals and institutions provided a way to avoid drinking the pathogen-infested river water. What they got instead was arsenic poisoning.

In the first episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, acute toxicity resulted in rapid death from an organic arsenic compound.

In the second episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, chronic toxicity resulted in slow debilitation, blackfoot disease, cancer, etc. from inorganic arsenic. Naturally occurring in the groundwater.

The iron reducing bacteria are provoking the more recent arsenic problems.

The previous arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta was simply a US war crime.

So hell bent on starving the entire population that might support the enemy, we used deadly poison to kill his crops. In so doing, we killed many of his children who drank the water.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Arsenic Poisoning in the Mekong Delta - TWICE in my lifetime, two different ways.

The "extended" phenotype of iron reducing bacteria includes the release of arsenic into groundwater via reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic.

The arsenic found in groundwater is in the form of inorganic ions, either arsenic(III) arsenite, AsO3(3-), or arsenic(V) arsenate, AsO4(3-).

The first widespread arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta during my lifetime occurred during the US war there.

As part of the "food denial program", the herbicide "Agent blue" was sprayed from aircraft on to rice paddies. The plan was to starve out the enemy by killing his crops. "Agent blue" was cacodylic acid, (CH3)2As(O)OH. This is an "organic" arsenic compound, with two organic methyl groups attached. It is not ever found in groundwater. It was very effective at killing the rice crops. And it also killed a lot of people who unknowingly consumed this tasteless, odorless, colorless deadly poison.

That was in the 1960s and 1970s.

More than a generation later, some of the very same villages where people were poisoned from arsenic sprayed down from above now had a lot of people sick with arsenic drawn up from a well.

It had never happened before because nobody ever installed shallow tube wells to get drinking water there before. In the interest of public health protection, well meaning individuals and institutions provided a way to avoid drinking the pathogen-infested river water. What they got instead was arsenic poisoning.

In the first episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, acute toxicity resulted in rapid death from an organic arsenic compound.

In the second episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, chronic toxicity resulted in slow debilitation, blackfoot disease, cancer, etc. from inorganic arsenic. Naturally occurring in the groundwater.

The iron reducing bacteria are provoking the more recent arsenic problems.

The previous arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta was simply a US war crime.

So hell bent on starving the entire population that might support the enemy, we used deadly poison to kill his crops. In so doing, we killed many of his children who drank the water.

You are a success if and only when no one mentions the JFK files that Trump is keeping for, well for safe keeping and as a bullet redirector.

Smile

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Arsenic Poisoning in the Mekong Delta - TWICE in my lifetime, two different ways.

The "extended" phenotype of iron reducing bacteria includes the release of arsenic into groundwater via reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic.

The arsenic found in groundwater is in the form of inorganic ions, either arsenic(III) arsenite, AsO3(3-), or arsenic(V) arsenate, AsO4(3-).

The first widespread arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta during my lifetime occurred during the US war there.

As part of the "food denial program", the herbicide "Agent blue" was sprayed from aircraft on to rice paddies. The plan was to starve out the enemy by killing his crops. "Agent blue" was cacodylic acid, (CH3)2As(O)OH. This is an "organic" arsenic compound, with two organic methyl groups attached. It is not ever found in groundwater. It was very effective at killing the rice crops. And it also killed a lot of people who unknowingly consumed this tasteless, odorless, colorless deadly poison.

That was in the 1960s and 1970s.

More than a generation later, some of the very same villages where people were poisoned from arsenic sprayed down from above now had a lot of people sick with arsenic drawn up from a well.

It had never happened before because nobody ever installed shallow tube wells to get drinking water there before. In the interest of public health protection, well meaning individuals and institutions provided a way to avoid drinking the pathogen-infested river water. What they got instead was arsenic poisoning.

In the first episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, acute toxicity resulted in rapid death from an organic arsenic compound.

In the second episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, chronic toxicity resulted in slow debilitation, blackfoot disease, cancer, etc. from inorganic arsenic. Naturally occurring in the groundwater.

The iron reducing bacteria are provoking the more recent arsenic problems.

The previous arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta was simply a US war crime.

So hell bent on starving the entire population that might support the enemy, we used deadly poison to kill his crops. In so doing, we killed many of his children who drank the water.

You are a success if and only when no one mentions the JFK files that Trump is keeping for, well for safe keeping and as a bullet redirector.

Smile

Don't you ever wish you actually knew some of this stuff?

There are far more things in heaven and earth, Swan, than are dreamt of in your conspiracy.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Arsenic Poisoning in the Mekong Delta - TWICE in my lifetime, two different ways.

The "extended" phenotype of iron reducing bacteria includes the release of arsenic into groundwater via reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic.

The arsenic found in groundwater is in the form of inorganic ions, either arsenic(III) arsenite, AsO3(3-), or arsenic(V) arsenate, AsO4(3-).

The first widespread arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta during my lifetime occurred during the US war there.

As part of the "food denial program", the herbicide "Agent blue" was sprayed from aircraft on to rice paddies. The plan was to starve out the enemy by killing his crops. "Agent blue" was cacodylic acid, (CH3)2As(O)OH. This is an "organic" arsenic compound, with two organic methyl groups attached. It is not ever found in groundwater. It was very effective at killing the rice crops. And it also killed a lot of people who unknowingly consumed this tasteless, odorless, colorless deadly poison.

That was in the 1960s and 1970s.

More than a generation later, some of the very same villages where people were poisoned from arsenic sprayed down from above now had a lot of people sick with arsenic drawn up from a well.

It had never happened before because nobody ever installed shallow tube wells to get drinking water there before. In the interest of public health protection, well meaning individuals and institutions provided a way to avoid drinking the pathogen-infested river water. What they got instead was arsenic poisoning.

In the first episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, acute toxicity resulted in rapid death from an organic arsenic compound.

In the second episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, chronic toxicity resulted in slow debilitation, blackfoot disease, cancer, etc. from inorganic arsenic. Naturally occurring in the groundwater.

The iron reducing bacteria are provoking the more recent arsenic problems.

The previous arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta was simply a US war crime.

So hell bent on starving the entire population that might support the enemy, we used deadly poison to kill his crops. In so doing, we killed many of his children who drank the water.

You are a success if and only when no one mentions the JFK files that Trump is keeping for, well for safe keeping and as a bullet redirector.

Smile

Don't you ever wish you actually knew some of this stuff?

There are far more things in heaven and earth, Swan, than are dreamt of in your conspiracy.

If you could see what I do, then you would know that the only real conspiracy, is reality.

At the beginning of the pandemic there were testing sites so that people could get tested? or so that the testers could better spread the disease? The fact is that going to a mass testing site for a communicable disease is exactly what communicable disease experts warn will spread disease, as it did because morons like you who call me a theorist do what they are told like a vacuum cleaner.

Again this conspiracy theorist bought apples and laughed at your bud light purchases

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Arsenic Poisoning in the Mekong Delta - TWICE in my lifetime, two different ways.

The "extended" phenotype of iron reducing bacteria includes the release of arsenic into groundwater via reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic.

The arsenic found in groundwater is in the form of inorganic ions, either arsenic(III) arsenite, AsO3(3-), or arsenic(V) arsenate, AsO4(3-).

The first widespread arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta during my lifetime occurred during the US war there.

As part of the "food denial program", the herbicide "Agent blue" was sprayed from aircraft on to rice paddies. The plan was to starve out the enemy by killing his crops. "Agent blue" was cacodylic acid, (CH3)2As(O)OH. This is an "organic" arsenic compound, with two organic methyl groups attached. It is not ever found in groundwater. It was very effective at killing the rice crops. And it also killed a lot of people who unknowingly consumed this tasteless, odorless, colorless deadly poison.

That was in the 1960s and 1970s.

More than a generation later, some of the very same villages where people were poisoned from arsenic sprayed down from above now had a lot of people sick with arsenic drawn up from a well.

It had never happened before because nobody ever installed shallow tube wells to get drinking water there before. In the interest of public health protection, well meaning individuals and institutions provided a way to avoid drinking the pathogen-infested river water. What they got instead was arsenic poisoning.

In the first episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, acute toxicity resulted in rapid death from an organic arsenic compound.

In the second episode of arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta, chronic toxicity resulted in slow debilitation, blackfoot disease, cancer, etc. from inorganic arsenic. Naturally occurring in the groundwater.

The iron reducing bacteria are provoking the more recent arsenic problems.

The previous arsenic poisoning in the Mekong Delta was simply a US war crime.

So hell bent on starving the entire population that might support the enemy, we used deadly poison to kill his crops. In so doing, we killed many of his children who drank the water.

You are a success if and only when no one mentions the JFK files that Trump is keeping for, well for safe keeping and as a bullet redirector.

Smile

Don't you ever wish you actually knew some of this stuff?

There are far more things in heaven and earth, Swan, than are dreamt of in your conspiracy.

If you could see what I do, then you would know that the only real conspiracy, is reality.

At the beginning of the pandemic there were testing sites so that people could get tested? or so that the testers could better spread the disease? The fact is that going to a mass testing site for a communicable disease is exactly what communicable disease experts warn will spread disease, as it did because morons like you who call me a theorist do what they are told like a vacuum cleaner.

Again this conspiracy theorist bought apples and laughed at your bud light purchases

The "COW GAS!..." thread has picked up several hundred more "views" as it lies buried way down the list where viewers have to go way out of their way to find it. Swan, I don't think YOU are the one who keeps opening the thread. I'm not.

Here is where you humiliate me for being a lonely troll, posting on a dead website, publishing diatribes that NOBODY will ever see.

Or perhaps I should feel inadequate for not getting a million "likes" for my cat video, on the websites where all the billions of people post.

It doesn't bother me if it is another six months before any other PhD environmental scientists start discussing it. Whether I'm still here or not, they will be able to find it all.

I'm not ready to invite my colleagues to view it yet.

I need to keep compiling more concise examples, from the best of the best of my research.

And I don't mind saying so myself that I think I do a pretty good job explaining complicated stuff that very few people in the world have even heard about.

If you are familiar with the terminology, you know that I use it very well.

Im a BM wrote:
Cyanobacteria "Extended" Phenotype - Allelopathic Suppression of Anoxygenic Photosynthetic Competitors

Cyanobacteria originally evolved oxygenic photosynthesis as the only way to survive in waters that had too few chemical reductants (H2, H2S, As(III), Fe(II), NO2-) to support anoxygenic photosynthesis.

This enabled them to remain in zones where reductant supply was diminishing, and colonize zones where reductants had already been exhausted.

The reductant "deserts" of the sea could now support a photosynthetic community.

In order to make their own reductant, where none can be acquired from the surrounding water, cyanobacteria tear a water molecule apart to get its hydrogen.

The waste product of this reaction H2O = H2 + O2, is oxygen gas.

Oxygen gas is highly beneficial to nearby organisms that need a good terminal electron acceptor to exploit the reductants in the water for energy yielding oxidation reactions.

What happens next in the competition for light among photosynthetic organisms?

By generating oxygen, cyanobacteria enable nearby oxidizing organisms to consume any reductants that might be available to anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria. Without available reductants, the anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria can't perform photosynthesis at all. Allelopathic suppression of the competition.

This competition continue nearly 3000 million years later in microsites on Earth.

There are places where hydrothermal water rich in ferrous iron(II) comes up from the sea floor.

One reason we know that anoxygenic bacteria who can use ferrous iron(II) as reductant for photosynthesis ever existed is because some are still around today.

Where enough ferrous iron is in the water, these photosynthetic bacteria can get a lot more bang for the buck from sunlight energy for photosynthesis. They EASILY out compete the oxygenic cyanobacteria and other plankton, growing much faster with the same amount of sunlight.

In the niches where they survive today, there is a zone where the water that is rich in ferrous iron and the iron based anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria thrive. As the ferrous iron rich water moves toward the surface it encounters more and more oxygen rich water. Iron oxidizers exploit the opportunity. By the time it reaches the surface, there is too little ferrous iron in it to support the iron based anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria.

So, today, you can find these sites where at the surface there is a community of oxygenic photosynthetic organisms, including cyanobacteria.

Below that layer, in the SHADE of it, is a thriving community of iron based photosynthetic bacteria.

They can get so much more bang for the buck from sunlight in photosynthesis, the low light in the shade of the oxygenic community is more than enough.

If they could do this in the high light at the surface, they could grow even more, but they have been allelopathically suppressed in that zone.

So, back in the day, 3000 million years ago, cyanobacteria got a fringe benefit for their clever trick of acquiring hydrogen from water. The product of their photosynthesis enabled them to allelopathically suppress anoxygenic competitors. Perhaps in symbiotic partnership with sulfur oxidizers, for example, they could push the margins of their community out into zones where reductants are still available for anoxygenic photosynthesis. Their sulfur oxidizing partners could snatch up the H2S and aerobically oxidize it before the sulfur based anoxygenic bacteria could get it. Or their iron oxidizing partners could snatch up the ferrous iron before iron based anoxygenic bacteria could get it.

So, it is hereby proclaimed that the "extended" phenotype of oxygenic photosynthetic organisms includes fitness imparted in natural selection through the allelopathic suppression of anoxygenic photosynthetic competitors. They basically took away the competition's food supply.

Im a BM wrote:
The "Extended" Phenotype of Rainforest Fern Thickets.

There are species of fern that form monospecific thickets on disturbed sites of rainforests where full sun now reaches the ground.

These slow growing ferns are not the first plants to get in. By the time the ferns start moving in, a pioneer community of first succession plants has already begun to establish. Growing in vinelike fashion, the ferns simply climb on top of everyone who is already there and shade them out. But many of the pioneer trees are already too tall for the ferns to do this.

The ferns just start piling up more and more on top of everything. They hardly even put any roots in the mineral soil. Lateral rhizomes in the decomposing fern litter above the soil surface are where nearly all the root nutrient uptake occurs.

They create a dense inpenetrable mat over the soil surface. Any seeds sprouting in the mineral soil will never see the sun. Any seeds falling into the fern thicket will never reach the ground.

Lovers of biodiversity hate these ferns. They move into a diverse pioneer community and take it over with a monopoly. Just one or two species of fern are the only vegetation to be found there.

Those pioneer trees that were too tall for the ferns to overtop aren't doing so well either. They are getting sick with manganese toxicity. They will soon enough die from it. And the abundance of soluble manganese in the mineral soil that poisoned the pioneer trees was a direct result of the fern's "extended" phenotype.

These ferns have INCREDIBLY high concentration of polyphenols in their foliage.

One impact that this has is to slow decomposition of the fern litter enough that they create their own medium for root growth, nutrient cycling, and nutrient uptake ABOVE the mineral soil. The ferns will hardly feel it if the underlying mineral soils becomes toxic with too much dissolved manganese.

Another impact is that polyphenols can act as both chelating agents and reducing agents to solubilize manganese in the underlying mineral soil.

Polyphenols can act as chemical reductants to reduce solid manganese(IV) and dissolve it into soluble manganese(II). Polyphenols are metal complexing organic acids that can chelate manganese(II), enabling soil water solution to hold higher concentrations of it at any given pH. They can also chelate manganese(IV) from solid phase, holding manganese(IV), normally insoluble, in solution as a dissolved organometallic complex.

So, the "extended" phenotype of these ferns includes chemical warfare against the competition. Their polyphenols mobilize so much manganese in the mineral soil that it poisons the trees who got there before them. Allelopathy is part of the fern's "extended" phenotype.

Another post will be needed later to praise what these ferns do with OTHER aspects of their "extended" phenotype. For example, their impacts on hydrology make them a land manager's dream, to maximize aquifer recharge and minimize erosion or runoff. This aspect of their "extended" phenotype doesn't benefit the ferns reproductive success much. But its impact to the ecosystem is favorable to many other species.