Kerry's forest ideas out of step with sound ecosystem management
wxdano9 at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 10 12:48:32 EST 2004
Psalm 110 <ScienceCop at HighCommand.org> wrote in message news:<c1efh01e3nfibq6naqp39cjd8qcnioenb7 at 4ax.com>...
> On 9 Aug 2004 09:31:20 -0700, wxdano9 at hotmail.com (Dano) wrote:
> >Psalm 110 <ScienceCop at HighCommand.org> wrote in message news:<i53eh0lq4i22hq96cbjdaojl03do1hcb12 at 4ax.com>...
I appreciate your desire to have every usenet post be prolix and
adhere to your standards of exactitude. I, however, have no such
desire and acknowledge that some users appreciate brevity.
> Hot fires volitalize, means evaporate into unusable gasous form, N in
> tissues. It does not "release N" as nutrient. Unburned tissues can be,
> and are, decomposed by assorted living and inorganic forces,
> liberating N, but it can never be as much N as was previously present
> in the system before the fire.
And I also ensured that I made a distinction, which you apparently
> Mycorrhizial symbiosis serves many functions, primarily a phospate
> pump. No true fungal family member has ever been found to possess
> Nitrogenase genes. They are exclusively bacterial.
Huh. My textbooks and many published papers need to be re-written
then. (not about the N-ase genes).
> An acre of redwood sorrel would fit in one wheelbarrow. It has
> negligable biomass, which confirms what I said, not disputes it.
> Sunlight limits biomass formation under climax canopy forest condition
> regardless of abundance of all other requirements of life.
I gave an example of adaptation to low light conditions. My apologies
for not knowing your preference for examples. I could quibble over
'climax canopy conditions', but choose not to, as a pissing contest
with you would require me to drink more water than my bladder can
> >> Forest fires actually incinerate and volitalize nitrogen.
> >Be careful. Incineration is only in catastrophic fire. Volatilization
> >makes N available for short periods.
> Incineration occures in any fire which gives off visible light. You
> are speaking from ignorance and have no citations or proof, because
> there are none. Incineration in the laboratory is the method to obtain
> gasous N, which is then measured to determine how much N used to be
> bound up in tissue. Come back after you have studied chemistry lab
> procedures to measure N.
I do apologize for not taking 774 words to make my statement more
explicit. I have also cored soil to measure burns in the field for
biotic N measurements, in addition to measuring N in the lab. Thank
you for your concern.
I shall in the future, should I choose to respond to another of your
lectures, strive to make my post quibble-proof.
> > A burned
> >> forest has less nitrogen total quantity, but plenty of light. That
> >> light alone is the cause of the initial flush of growth,
> >You should contact all the fire ecologists you know then. They would
> >be interested in this new knowledge.
> Anyone who does not know that is NOT a competent or fully trained
Again, the topic was N and fire. I asserted there was a short-term
increase in ammonium from fire, and that flush influenced growth. If
you think that is incorrect, you should perhaps cite something and
demand of yourself the quibble-proofness you demand of me. It is easy
enough to Google 'postfire N cycling' and show what I stated. I shall
return from vacation next week to see what you found about postfire N
> Since everyting (EVERYTHING) in your reply was wrong or irrelevent to
> the discussion, why should you think you are qualified to make your
> parting shot?
More information about the Ag-forst