Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: accommodationist hidey-hole

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Faid

2
As the ordained chief steward over all of nature, it is not Mankind's job to make every tiny little decision, just as it is not the job of the CEO of Ford Motor Company to make every tiny little decision involved in running his company.
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Fortunately, other posters aren't tired of arguing with
you, so the thread goes on.

What, specifically, will grow in your gaps that can feed sheep and goats?
At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.
So tell me- What mechanism does Nature (who, of course. Knows Best) have in place, to make sheep and goats instinctively know whether a plant that they have never seen, smelled or tasted before is good to eat?

Does she softly whisper in their ear?

Or is there, in fact, some other mechanism? If so, do you know what that is, and how it applies to your sheep and goats?
3
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Well you're right about one thing. Nothing will be destroyed- Because you'll never get to do any of those things.
4
I'm putting Zombies on ignore along with RAFH ... S/N ratio is just too low.
So you're just going to pretend you don't see his posts, while carefully reading them in the hope you'll find something to comment on and strike a 'gotcha'?

Because that's what you do with RAFH.
5
Trump isn't a real business man.

Trump is going to start World War 3 with China.

Trump is going to piss off China and not be able to reduce the trade deficit.

Trump is not going to be in office in January of 2019 and will probably wind up in jail.

And last but not least... You can't raise goats and sheep in light gaps in the rainforest.

Oh my sides!
Rainforest.

Focus.
7
Here.
I'll click it for you:
Quote
Soil Food Web

By Elaine R. Ingham


:pwned:


Wonderful. I'm glad that they are taking notice of her work.
"taking notice"?
She wrote their "soil primer" 20 years ago.

So you want to maybe rethink that idiotic "armies of fake scientists"  slogan?
No. It's still quite appropriate. Most farming in the USA is still the type of farming that uses chemical fertilizers and thus destroys soil life.
Except your narrative of mainstream scientists working for them goes down the drain.

Enjoy your crow, hawkins.
8
But alas, the fertilizer salesmen with their armies of fake scientists are a powerful force indeed.
You mean like the USDA ?
Damn that fertilizer establishment with their fake scientist armies., always plotting, scheming, finding sinister ways to preserve pristine rainforests!
9
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
I don't know what the percent is. But it's got to be pretty close to 100% because soil scientists like Elaine Ingham tell us that if you measure the soluble fertilizer content of rainforest soils you will barely get a reading at all. Which is really interesting because it tells us that some of the best plant growth on the planet is achieved entirely without a man-made product which most mainstream agriculturalists think is indispensable for growing plants. That is, commercial fertilizers.
Mother of All Non-Sequiturs.
10
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
In fact, many types of trees take measures to increase that probability, by attracting microroganisms back into the nutrient depleted zone close to their roots. I wonder why they would need to do that.
11
It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
:rofl:

"I would totally kick your ass! Make you cry like a little baby! You're lucky my mom is coming to pick me up"
12
Dave all that has to happen for nutrients to be in a form that can be subject to leaching is for them to be water soluble. Funnily enough that's also the form they have to be in for them to be available to plants.
Yes but what you keep missing even though I've talked about it several times is the fact that there's a very short distance between the ass end of a protozoan and the root hair on which he takes a dump.  And there's a very short time span between when this protozoa poop leaves the protozoa's ass and enters the root hairs' mouth.  Yes I'm anthropomorphizing here a bit to make a point. I do realize that there is no actual ass and no actual mouth, okay? The point of all this is that the nutrients don't have a chance to get leached away because the nutrient Loop is so tight.
You know, now that I read this again, it's not as wrong as your previous assertions. I think that you have (quietly) aknowledged that it's soil concentration that determines nutrient uptake, and that leeching occurs- It's just that there's not much time for leeching to happen when microorganisms close to the roots release nutrients. Am I right about that?
13
Dave all that has to happen for nutrients to be in a form that can be subject to leaching is for them to be water soluble. Funnily enough that's also the form they have to be in for them to be available to plants.
Yes but what you keep missing even though I've talked about it several times is the fact that there's a very short distance between the ass end of a protozoan and the root hair on which he takes a dump.  And there's a very short time span between when this protozoa poop leaves the protozoa's ass and enters the root hairs' mouth.  Yes I'm anthropomorphizing here a bit to make a point. I do realize that there is no actual ass and no actual mouth, okay? The point of all this is that the nutrients don't have a chance to get leached away because the nutrient Loop is so tight.
"fact"?
14
Rainforest.

Focus.
Who talked about evolution and Shapiro, again?

Focus.
15
What have you actually read on the subject?
Or do you imagine that your YEC "paradigm" automatically confers on you superior knowledge - no reading required?
Shapiro

Not a YEC.
Not only have you never read a single Shapiro research paper, you misunderstand what he writes in his pop-sci internet postings. If you understood and accepted what he says about evolution, you would have to jettison YEC.
you really are an idiot.
I believe the word you were looking for was "right".
16
plants adapt to their environment very quickly which you would know if you knew anything about evolution.
[citation needed]   
Quote
What you don't because you've bought Darwin mumbo-jumbo Hook Line & Sinker.
You are such an obvious blowhard, Hawkins.
You don't know the first thing about evolution.
Incorrect. I actually know more about it than you do because I'm not operating under a failed paradigm.
Sure dave. You know more about evolution than evolutionists, about biology than biologists, about geology than geologists, ecology from ecologists, physics from physicists, chemistry from chemists... All thanks to that Successful Paradigm that you follow. And all is well in Davesworld.
17
Quote
But I'm not sure if anyone here cares about this interesting scientific stuff

Quote
I don't bother reading such studies because they don't pertain to what I'm doing.
this would make sense to you if you could get it through your thick skull that the great science going on these days is not in the mainstream. It's happening on Little Farms here and there and once in awhile there's someone with a Ph.D like Elaine Ingham that gets her head screwed on straight and helps out.
:rofl:    How different do you think Ingham's take on soil science is from the USDA's ?
Quite different.  I just Googled "USDA soil" and got nothing remotely close to the stuff Elaine Ingham is talking about.
Well that settles it then!
18
Why?
You need to ask? as a "Real Scientist" shouldn't you be eager to investigate the possibility that this "form" has, oh I dunno, something to do with the solubility of those nutrients in the soil close to the roots?

Just a thought. Not like this is college knowledge or anything.
19
Here's some fairly detailed information about bacteria and protozoan communities in the rhizosphere around root hairs.

Quote
   Though numbering far fewer in the soil than the bacteria they prey on, protozoa are an indispensible link in the transfer of nutrients through the food web that drives forest productivity. These single celled, eukaryotic "bactivores" concentrate themselves in regions of high bacterial activity, notably in the vicinity of plant roots. I've previously discussed the "microbial loop theory", a paradigm for understanding plant nutrient acquisition in terms of the interactions between root exudates, protozoan predators and bacterial prey. To summarize briefly, plant roots exude sugary compounds to "prime" the surrounding soil, making it a highly suitable habitat for bacterial populations. Protozoans naturally move in, too. As quickly as bacteria decompose organic matter to recycle nutrients for their own growth and metabolism, protozoans eat bacteria and excrete those very same nutrients in a form readily available for plants. This "microbial loop" of nutrients is essentially an ecological fertilization system built on a very simple predator-prey model.

https://wyrdscience.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/protozoa-drive-growth-enhancing-hormone-release-in-the-rhizosphere/
that last part needed to be emphasized.
That previous part needed to be emphasized as well.
20
Here's some fairly detailed information about bacteria and protozoan communities in the rhizosphere around root hairs.

Quote
   Though numbering far fewer in the soil than the bacteria they prey on, protozoa are an indispensible link in the transfer of nutrients through the food web that drives forest productivity. These single celled, eukaryotic "bactivores" concentrate themselves in regions of high bacterial activity, notably in the vicinity of plant roots. I've previously discussed the "microbial loop theory", a paradigm for understanding plant nutrient acquisition in terms of the interactions between root exudates, protozoan predators and bacterial prey. To summarize briefly, plant roots exude sugary compounds to "prime" the surrounding soil, making it a highly suitable habitat for bacterial populations. Protozoans naturally move in, too. As quickly as bacteria decompose organic matter to recycle nutrients for their own growth and metabolism, protozoans eat bacteria and excrete those very same nutrients in a form readily available for plants. This "microbial loop" of nutrients is essentially an ecological fertilization system built on a very simple predator-prey model.

https://wyrdscience.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/protozoa-drive-growth-enhancing-hormone-release-in-the-rhizosphere/
And what is this "form readily available for plants"?
21
How do you know it's "new"?

And how do you know it's a different process?
it's new in the sense that almost no one in the mainstream is talking about it.
And you know that from your extensive review of the relevant bibliography?

Quote
And it's not a different process once it comes out of the protozoa's ass.
And that process is...
22
How do you know it's "new"?

And how do you know it's a different process?
23
I had hoped that this would be an interesting discussion about how micro-organisms Supply plants with nutrients. It's really interesting stuff.
Lol. That is LITERALLY the thing I'm asking you.
Quote
But instead it was yet another study in human psychology.
Most of your posts are.
24
Just forget it. You people obviously aren't interested in learning anything about holistic management or microorganisms in the soil or anything other than what you learned at University. You are happy with your slogans like "don't cut trees down in rainforest" and that's the end of it.
Not University. Highschool. Our brainwashing started early on, see.

For example- Do you know the official Prty line on "How Do Plant Root Work"?
25
"The point that you don't seem to grasp is that the portion in the free form is continuously subject to rapid leaching."

No I grasped that point a long time ago. You are the one that is not grasping my point, my point being that I don't freaking care about these free form minerals. What I care about is microorganisms. How many different ways do I need to say this before you will get it?
No one cares about what you care about. Some care to clarify your understanding of said issues. But you don't seem to care about that either.

Again, how do those "salts" go from the inside of microorganisms to plant roots? Care to elaborate on your previous "guess"?
Again, I'm just starting to learn the specifics of this and the only one I can give you any sort of an answer for would-be protozoa. It is my understanding that protozoa eat bacteria and poop out excess nitrogen in the form of some sort of salt. Maybe salt isn't the right word I forget. Whatever Elaine Ingham said on the video. Or was it Patricia Richardson. I don't remember for sure but it doesn't matter. The point is that these protozoa poop out a form of nitrogen that the plants can use. The obvious question then is the obvious question then is why wouldn't this get washed away in a big rain and I think the answer must be that they are pooping it directly on the root hairs and it is getting absorbed almost immediately.

But I'm not sure if anyone here cares about this interesting scientific stuff. It seems that most people here are only interested in mindlessly chanting slogans such as ....

"Dave is an idiot"

"Cutting rainforest is bad"

And so on.
That is not an answer.

The question is, HOW do plants "use" that form?

Or is that not "interesting scientific stuff"?