Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Wading doesn't help.

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 - Fenrir

1
" (what the hell difference does the location make?) "

Lol

Don't you think my boss would have something to say about it if me and the secretary were getting it on in one of the side offices, let alone the head office if I was the boss of the whole place? My boss has this funny rule that office work places are for work. You would think that the president of the United States might have the same standard.

Except that he's the boss in that analogy.

And that for most POTUS' the White House is their home.

So, apart from every single known detail, the two cases are absolutely identical.

You all should be ashamed, you Darwinist agriculturalist baby-slaughterers you.
2
Here's a better plan. Talk the Wai Wai into allocating some of their existing cleared area. You shouldn't need much or a long time to show the power of your super plan, seeing as it's so super right? Then they will be knocking your door down (or blanket or whatever) wanting more right?
3
Teehee.

Someone takes their cart for a belt on a lake. Cue 10 pages of abdominal discomfort.
4
I'm sure thats just part of his cunning 8d plan to make merka great again while saving the world with agriculture. Who are we to second guess such a great businessman?
5
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?

WTF?

Animals only go feral if there are no other animals of similar size and habit present?

What's this then?

7
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.
Oh really?
What is the first hit you get when you search "USDA soil primer" ?



Or go with "USDA soil", open the first hit and select "soil health" from the menu on their home page. Read the first two paragraphs.
9
The impact of logging roads on dung beetle assemblages in a tropical rainforest reserve

Today's episode brought to you by the word edge-effect and the number 2.

Or 1.

Is edge-effect one word or two?
10
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/

Yes. And?

How is this relevant to the documented rapid leaching of nutrient from rainforest soil after clearing?
It's not. Why would it be? We don't care about leaching of almost non-existent inorganic nutrients which I have almost no impact on plant growth. What we care about is microorganisms. Or rather what we should care about.

Where are these microorganisms getting the nutrients from Dave?
in the rainforest my guess would be primarily from dead vegetation.

And where did the vegetation that died get it from?

Elephants and dinosaurs.
11
From testes paper that someone just pulled forward

Quote
  The deforested catchment loss of dissolved inorganic nitrogen increased 95 % over the forested catchment. 

Yeah so how much is 1.95 X Almost Zero?

Answer:
Still almost zero.

( Siri was the one that spelled your name like that, not me. Maybe she knows more about you than I thought )

It isn't "almost zero". The available nitrogen now includes what is being released from the previously existing biomass, which you have released into the soil by clearing.

And no, most of it is not being turned into grass in your fantasy. See if you can figure out what this graph means:




From here.
12
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/

Yes. And?

How is this relevant to the documented rapid leaching of nutrient from rainforest soil after clearing?
13
This has little to nothing to do with the grazing part. The water simply runs off unforested land faster than forested land. When you have a hundred inches of rain a year, it works differently than when you have 40 inches a year or less. There's that octohatter bullshit nonlinear scaling again.

Quote
Changes in nutrient and hydrological cycles caused by land disturbance typically lead to detrimental changes to ecosystems. This study utilized a paired, small-catchment approach to examine the effect of deforestation on soils and streams of the tropical Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. The first catchment had been cleared for pasture and the second consisted of undisturbed tropical wet forest. Soil concentrations of organic matter, total and soil-available phosphorus (P) were higher in the forested catchment with reductions of >33 % of each in the deforested catchment. The effect of deforestation on stream discharge was a 59 % increase in flow during the wet season and a higher Q5:Q95 (percentile flow) ratio showing that the deforested stream yielded shorter duration, higher magnitude flood peaks. The deforested catchment loss of dissolved inorganic nitrogen increased 95 % over the forested catchment. Soluble reactive phosphorus showed a 43 % higher load in the deforested catchment compared to the forested catchment. The molar N:P ratios were low and both streams were well below the level at which N limitation of lotic algal growth has been reported. It, therefore, appears that N is the limiting nutrient in streams in the study area. Soil nutrient depletion in the deforested catchment, accelerated by a changed hydrological regime, is the likely trajectory of soil-water interactions in this tropical ecosystem. Loss of nutrients and organic matter from terrestrial ecosystems will likely lead to long-term impacts on lowland tropical communities. Should deforestation become widespread along this stretch of the Pacific coastline possible eutrophication of receiving transitional and coastal waters may occur.

Not that all the RSPL there makes any sense to you, I know. But occasionally I forget that you have the brain of a gnat and can't see anything you don't already believe.

eta: whoops. link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40899-015-0003-x

Pulling this forward.
14
Kill microorganisms in the soil. Kill brain cells. Kill unborn babies. Let's see... What else can we kill?
Born babies?
Old people that can't work. Maybe young ones too.

Hopes and dreams.
16
The video you're about to provide a link to, right?    :popcorn:

And a timestamp
17
Voxrat has gotten quiet.

He's franoogling.


I got nothing. Better cover by repeating something someone else said. It nailed me good and proper so it should be a great distraction from my inability to engage or demonstrate understanding of basic concepts.
18
What I am proposing is to open up the canopy today least 50% sunlight penetration so grass will grow. Don't burn the felled trees. Cut them up for lumber, mulch them, etc. Feed the leaves to the animals.

No leaching. No soil degradation. Soil will actually uppen over time.

1. Clearing mile long swathes through vegetation is not "open up the canopy today least 50% sunlight penetration so grass will grow". It is broad-scale clearing.

2. You cannot (more than temporarily*) reduce a rainforest to 50% FPC (or PFC) and still have a rainforest, or any forest at all in most cases.

3. It does not matter what you do to the forest or the biomass you will not change the basic nature of the soil or the hydrological cycle. Nutrient released into the soil will be leached faster than it accumulates, assuming the soil itself hasn't simply been washed away.


*by temporarily i mean events like leaves being stripped by cyclones and stuff. Cyclone Yasi did a lot of that sort of damage and there has been quite some effort put into monitoring recovery, turns out even that temporary if widespread damage takes a long time to recover.
19
Soooo

When you cut down and burn all the biomass and put those nutrients into that soil, which is prone to leaching by it's very nature, and it rains, heavily and persistently, what happens*?


*psst, here's a hint, read the paper Testy linked, it might contain clues.
20
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
Voxrat implied that. 
No. He did not.
Yes you did.

No. He did not.

  But it doesn't matter.  What matters is ... Do you agree that there is almost no nutrient leaching in rainforest soils?

No. I do not. A conclusion based on staggering amounts of work including the paper Testy linked to and which you refuse to acknowledge. Nutrients are rapidly leached from most rainforest soils.

Do you know why this is?

Yes, actually

  If so, please explain your view.

The nutrients in a rainforest don't get rapidly leached from the soil, not because of some majic bullshit, but because only small amounts are in the soil and those that are are quickly reincorporated into biomass.

They don't get leached because they are not in the soil where they can be leached.
21
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
22
Wonders at any parallels to heat shock proteins in plants.
23
So from this we learn about two minerals ... nitrogen and calcium which either will or will not leach out of the soil under Testy's Rainforest Firehose depending on whether that calcium or nitrogen is present in organic form (in the bodies of organisms) or not.

What say you?
I say you're not paying attention.

"Organic" nitrogen totes means nitrogen what is in a living organism.

"Inorganic" nitrogen is obvs that what is not in a living organism.

Science baby!
24
Won't someone please think of the Belgians?
25
Hey Canada, it's your turn!

https://www.vice.com/amp/en_ca/article/59qb93/the-racist-podcaster-who-started-a-neo-nazi-coffee-company-to-fund-white-nationalism

Quote
In the spring of 2017, Thomas White had an idea: What if he combined his love of gourmet coffee with his staunch belief in a white ethnostate?

[...]

The solution: Rising Sun Coffee Company, an online coffee emporium dedicated to both quality beans and the protection of the white race. Five percent of all sales would go to the buyer's white nationalist charity of choice. "Creating a new economy for the future of our people," read the tagline emblazoned on a picture of an all-white tiki torch-carrying brigade from the Charlottesville riots last year.

Oh my.

That's hilarious.

Coffee. Of all possible products they chose coffee.

I. Can't. Even. Coffee.