Kerry's forest ideas out of step with sound ecosystem management

O18-C-O16 hcf32 at yahoo.no
Sat Aug 7 16:25:24 EST 2004


wxdano9 at hotmail.com (Dano) wrote in message news:<e351cb91.0408030803.441ad803 at posting.google.com>...
> Melchizedek at USA.com (Psalm 110) wrote in message news:<2275a3c5.0407312230.18e78298 at posting.google.com>...
> > wxdano9 at hotmail.com (Dano) wrote in message news:<e351cb91.0407311754.34a1dd0e at posting.google.com>...
> > > Larry Caldwell <larryc at teleport.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b59f2de6010615598afa9 at news.west.earthlink.net>...
> 
> [snip] 
>   
>  
> > Wood has no "purpose" in nature.  Wood is. Carbon is. Decomposers are.
> > It evolved this way. In nature vast amounts of annual carbon are
> > deposited underground, in shed cells of tunneling roothairs. A single
> > rye plant has 7 miles of roothairs measured by tedious counting --
> > trees have much more. The subterranean carbon reaches measurements of
> > 50 times atmospheric CO2. Much of this will dissolve into water and
> > become carbonic acid that will etch rocks, sometimes dissolving
> > limestone caverns of great beauty like Carlsbad. Living trees deposit
> > 40% of their photosynthesis underground, never seen. The annual
> > production of carbon below ground is close to the visible production
> > seen above ground.
> 
> Yes. The 'purpose' of the single paren was to mirror the previous
> statement.

No wood, no trees.. 
> 
> [snip]
>   
> > > Yes. One of the benefits of fire is the nitrogen release - the initial
> > > flush of growth after a fire is due in large part to the nitrification
> > > process that occurs after a fire.
> > 
> > Actually, I believe it might be possible to construct an experiment
> > where all the other nutrients are delivered EXCEPT excluding Nitrogen,
> > and you will see the exact same flush.
> 
> I'd like to see it. The current texts and curricula are still teaching
> mineralization of nitrogen causes the flush. That is not to say that
> the curricula are correct, but perhaps that empirical evidence is
> lacking for your statement. I think that post-fire processes largely
> lack mychorrizal influence, hence limiting nitrogen may limit green
> growth - the N being carried though the metabolic process to create
> everything from leaf to amino acids...
> 
> > Liebig's law: whatsoever is the most-limiting nutrient will be the
> > dominent factor in limiting biomass formation. Nitrogen is often the
> > most limiting nutrient, but whatever is next in scarcity then controls
> > biomass formation.
> > 
> > The potash ("pot ash" as our grandparents knew it) or potasium is made
> > availabe in greater relative abundance, but a lot of nitrogen is
> > aerosolized and lost by the temperatures of forest fires.
> 
> Yes, but post-fire nitrogen is converted to ammonia, thus becoming
> mineralized and available to the plant. Hence the flush.

Maybe the onset of a 'mineral only' flush most often would be slower
but the amount of accumulated below ground carbon, larger. Could be
significant since soil carbon is supposed to enhance soil water
storage, the real limiting factor in fire prone forests.
 
> > One would suppose that the biomass created by fire debris would not be
> > greater than the amount that was present prior to the fire. In other
> > words, the building blocks of life have in no way been increased by
> > heat treatment. No "alchemy" or transmution here.
> > 
> > The discussion, as always, has been built around the focus of how to
> > we discount every value of living forests to justify deliving more
> > lumber profits of political campaign donors pockets. It is particulary
> > shabby science being selectively introduced for no other purpose than
> > to deceive others into supporting this agenda. This is not solely a
> > "republican" agenda, as democrats do the same damnable thin in their
> > turn in power. It is a perversion of science.
> 
> If I may, one can say that it is a _logical consequence_ of science,
> as the Aristotelan and Cartesian methods of ensuring objectivity allow
> value judgements tp be placed on objectified subjects. If the agenda
> of the observer is to devalue the subject in order to exploit, then
> Cartesian science allows this to happen.
> 
> > 
> > It would be preferable if you just came out and said "hey, lets steal
> > everything from our grandkids and have a big ole party while the
> > profits last, which hopefully won't run out until the day I'm on my
> > deathbed" and see if you can get people to back that agenda. If not,
> > give it up, because SCIENCE COP is going to bust your nuts if you use
> > fake science to further THAT agenda. Cappish?
> 
> dstaples below has an excellent point. Passion and commitment are
> good, and I like what you say.
> 
> The message must be received, however: "Joy is in the ears that hear
> not in the mouth that speaks and we must all have [happy] ears if we
> are to defy despite".
> 
> BTW, we were taught in forest ecology classes at my old Uni that
> perhaps ~15% of photosynthate may go to mychorrizal fungi, whereas
> your figger sez 40% - if true, this is very interesting indeed! I am a
> fungi guy myself, so have no problem with showing the importance of
> the chitin tribe.

> 
> Best,
> 
> D



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list