PDA

View Full Version : Pedogenesis


Smallaxe
03-23-2011, 05:09 PM
Definition:
"Soil (formation) is the process by which soil is created.[1] It is the major topic of the science of pedology, whose other aspects include the soil morphology, classification (taxonomy) of soils, and their distribution in nature, present and past (soil geography and paleopedology)."

Of course this has NOTHING to do with premixed topsoil additions and human management of the turfs...

I would think that we could decide, what is necessary to get our topdressings, into the soil in the most efficient way possible...

Any ideas? Why throw compost, fert, or even AACT on TOP of the turf? Will it take 1000 years to go 1" into the newly evolved soil?

How does that work? What can we do?

Other than makes personal attacks to one another, I mean... If it's possible... :)

starry night
03-23-2011, 05:25 PM
I would think that we could decide, what is necessary to get our topdressings, into the soil in the most efficient way possible...

Any ideas? Why throw compost, fert, or even AACT on TOP of the turf? Will it take 1000 years to go 1" into the newly evolved soil?


I think that's what the little buggers in the soil do for a living.

ICT Bill
03-23-2011, 08:45 PM
look up succession in soils

you will find it here on about page 3
the USDA has had this information up since 1997, they have been supporting the soil food web for a long time
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/soil_food_web.html

Smallaxe
03-24-2011, 09:41 AM
look up succession in soils

you will find it here on about page 3
the USDA has had this information up since 1997, they have been supporting the soil food web for a long time
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/soil_food_web.html

I picked this up from the website listted, but the question was: how do we get compost and other materials into the lower level of the soil... I'm beginning to believe that all meals, waste stream materials, including compost should even be applied unless you are aerating with a plugger... The rest of it, is all bs and no one really wants to discuss it... :)

"Improved structure, infiltration, and water-holding capacity. Many soil organisms are involved in the formation and stability of soil aggregates. Bacterial activity, organic matter, and the chemical properties of clay particles are responsible for creating microaggregates from individual soil particles. Earthworms and arthropods consume small aggregates of mineral particles and organic matter, and generate larger fecal pellets coated with compounds from the gut. These fecal pellets become part of the soil structure. Fungal hyphae and root hairs bind together and help stabilize larger aggregates. Improved aggregate stability, along with the burrows of earthworms and arthropods, increases porosity, water infiltration, and water-holding capacity.."

Kiril
03-24-2011, 10:12 AM
I picked this up from the website listted, but the question was: how do we get compost and other materials into the lower level of the soil... I'm beginning to believe that all meals, waste stream materials, including compost should even be applied unless you are aerating with a plugger... The rest of it, is all bs and no one really wants to discuss it... :)

Axe ..... for the few properties I still personally apply compost on, I only aerate every 3-5 years.

I just applied a pretty thick layer of compost in a small orchard not too long ago, and the increased in earthworm activity was phenomenal. I was out there last month checking some stuff, and raked aside a small area of the compost ..... and what did I find? I found about 10 earthworms in roughly 1 square foot. I wish I had had my camera with me.

Here is another observation. I have selectively top dressed compost, some areas getting compost, others not. The difference in soil tilth between the two after 1 season was nothing short of remarkable.

The point of all this ..... you don't necessarily need to aerate or till to get a beneficial gain in soil fertility/properties when top dressing.

Kiril
03-24-2011, 10:18 AM
Definition:
"Soil (formation) is the process by which soil is created.[1] It is the major topic of the science of pedology, whose other aspects include the soil morphology, classification (taxonomy) of soils, and their distribution in nature, present and past (soil geography and paleopedology)."

Of course this has NOTHING to do with premixed topsoil additions and human management of the turfs...

I would think that we could decide, what is necessary to get our topdressings, into the soil in the most efficient way possible...

Any ideas? Why throw compost, fert, or even AACT on TOP of the turf? Will it take 1000 years to go 1" into the newly evolved soil?

How does that work? What can we do?

Other than makes personal attacks to one another, I mean... If it's possible... :)

Axe .... these "topsoils" that are sold are really nothing more than a disturbed soil .... a mixing of O, A and sometimes B horizons depending on the regional soils. Now if you were to go get a big chunk of granite (as an example) and throw that on your lawn .... then you would be starting over.

Smallaxe
03-24-2011, 10:29 AM
Axe ..... for the few properties I still personally apply compost on, I only aerate every 3-5 years.

I just applied a pretty thick layer of compost in a small orchard not too long ago, and the increased in earthworm activity was phenomenal. I was out there last month checking some stuff, and raked aside a small area of the compost ..... and what did I find? I found about 10 earthworms in roughly 1 square foot. I wish I had had my camera with me.

Here is another observation. I have selectively top dressed compost, some areas getting compost, others not. The difference in soil tilth between the two after 1 season was nothing short of remarkable.

The point of all this ..... you don't necessarily need to aerate or till to get a beneficial gain in soil fertility/properties when top dressing.

I agree, earthworms are the best aerators and soil builders and fertilizerers in the world... Is that what is happening in your observed, improved tilth?

Is there something else happening, as well?

Kiril
03-24-2011, 10:37 AM
I agree, earthworms are the best aerators and soil builders and fertilizerers in the world... Is that what is happening in your observed, improved tilth?

Is there something else happening, as well?

That is what is happening in part. The other big contributor is water moving organic matter into the profile.

Smallaxe
03-24-2011, 10:56 AM
That is what is happening in part. The other big contributor is water moving organic matter into the profile.

Would it also be fair to say that, with high OM on the surface, that Microbes aid in creating structure that enhances the movement of that water? and that water management for the benefit of those microbes would be something the LCO could do to increase the utilization of the inputs that are put down?

Kiril
03-24-2011, 11:02 AM
Would it also be fair to say that, with high OM on the surface, that Microbes aid in creating structure that enhances the movement of that water? and that water management for the benefit of those microbes would be something the LCO could do to increase the utilization of the inputs that are put down?

I don't know if I would go so far to say high OM, but in general, yes to the rest. The microbes will also continue to break down the organic matter into forms that are more easily transported into the soil profile. In areas that require irrigation, proper water management is hands down the #1 most important aspect of maintaining a healthy soil and landscape.

Smallaxe
03-24-2011, 12:08 PM
Axe .... these "topsoils" that are sold are really nothing more than a disturbed soil .... a mixing of O, A and sometimes B horizons depending on the regional soils. Now if you were to go get a big chunk of granite (as an example) and throw that on your lawn .... then you would be starting over.

The O, A, and B horizons are nothing more than 'hydrosorting' of the different sized particles. Who knows what they were in composition b4 that...

Is there a problem with forming a specific mixture of clay, sand, silt/OM? Most soil literature I've read says 45% + 45%+ 10%, respectively = the best soils, for most cultivated crops and landscapes...

I hve to agree, that a huge granite boulder would be a problem... unless it is used by the rock crusher to make driveways... :)

Kiril
03-24-2011, 01:08 PM
The O, A, and B horizons are nothing more than 'hydrosorting' of the different sized particles. Who knows what they were in composition b4 that...

"Hydrosorting", as you are calling it, is a fluvial process. Soil can develop horizons without "hydrosorting".

Is there a problem with forming a specific mixture of clay, sand, silt/OM? Most soil literature I've read says 45% + 45%+ 10%, respectively = the best soils, for most cultivated crops and landscapes...

Work with your native soils whenever possible. I generally try to avoid "topsoil" unless absolutely necessary for leveling purposes. If you must use it, then it should be tilled into the native soil if you are adding significant amounts.

quackgrass
03-24-2011, 01:37 PM
Would it also be fair to say that, with high OM on the surface, that Microbes aid in creating structure that enhances the movement of that water?

Root growth contributes to an increase in SOM, especially with grasses. Not only that, they aid in incorporating OM deeper into the soil. Surface applied OM+fertilizer will increase your SOM more so than just applying OM.

Kiril
03-24-2011, 01:49 PM
Root growth contributes to an increase in SOM, especially with grasses. Not only that, they aid in incorporating OM deeper into the soil. Surface applied OM+fertilizer will increase your SOM more so than just applying OM.

Don't be so quick to assume that by adding fertilizer you will get an increase in SOM or SOC.

https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/36/6/1821

quackgrass
03-24-2011, 02:36 PM
Don't be so quick to assume that by adding fertilizer you will get an increase in SOM or SOC.

https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/36/6/1821

First of all, I wasn't quick to assume - I picked this up by working on over 300 square miles of revegetation work on mined soils that lacked any SOM.

Second of all I was talking about Fertilizer + surface applied OM increasing SOM more so than just applied OM.

Lastly, You cited a study using synthetic N to a harvested crop, which has nothing to do with grasses which typically would not be harvested nor tilled.

But thanks.

Kiril
03-24-2011, 03:19 PM
First of all, I wasn't quick to assume - I picked this up by working on over 300 square miles of revegetation work on mined soils that lacked any SOM.

Second of all I was talking about Fertilizer + surface applied OM increasing SOM more so than just applied OM.

Lastly, You cited a study using synthetic N to a harvested crop, which has nothing to do with grasses which typically would not be harvested nor tilled.

But thanks.

You didn't read the study Quack.

https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/36/6/1821

The first decade of commercial fertilization brought a minor increase in soil C for previously unamended subplots, but this was followed by a decline despite dramatic escalation in the return of above- and belowground residues as corn populations were increased progressively to 69,000 plants ha−1 by 2003.

Corn is a monocot .... just like a grass. If clippings are bagged, managed turf is being "harvested" just like a crop. If you core aerate you are in fact "tilling" to a limited extent.

And if you weren't talking about synthetic N as your fertilizer input, what type of N or fertilizer were you talking about?

And lastly ..... the findings in the study are absolutely applicable to any managed system with synthetic N inputs. Just because it is Ag doesn't mean the results of the study can't be reasonably extrapolated to other managed systems.

Smallaxe
03-24-2011, 05:33 PM
Root growth contributes to an increase in SOM, especially with grasses. Not only that, they aid in incorporating OM deeper into the soil. Surface applied OM+fertilizer will increase your SOM more so than just applying OM.

That is one thing that I favor about Annual Ryegrass as a cover crop for weak soils... It will growlike crazy, both top and bottom... When it dies in the fall it is able to decay into the soil, making good conditions for next year crop of real grass...

I agree, that using N to produce more biomass that stays onsite, should help with overall OM...

quackgrass
03-24-2011, 05:55 PM
You didn't read the study Quack.

https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/36/6/1821

The first decade of commercial fertilization brought a minor increase in soil C for previously unamended subplots, but this was followed by a decline despite dramatic escalation in the return of above- and belowground residues as corn populations were increased progressively to 69,000 plants ha−1 by 2003.

Corn is a monocot .... just like a grass. If clippings are bagged, managed turf is being "harvested" just like a crop. If you core aerate you are in fact "tilling" to a limited extent.

And if you weren't talking about synthetic N as your fertilizer input, what type of N or fertilizer were you talking about?

And lastly ..... the findings in the study are absolutely applicable to any managed system with synthetic N inputs. Just because it is Ag doesn't mean the results of the study can't be reasonably extrapolated to other managed systems.

Of course I wouldn't read a study about corn farming to determine SOM correlations to turf management. There is no reason to extrapolate because there are plenty of studies dealing directly with the issue, the only problem is that they prove you dead wrong - and that's why you chose to pick your study. You're a real credit to science Lord Kiril, nice work!

quackgrass
03-24-2011, 06:11 PM
That is one thing that I favor about Annual Ryegrass as a cover crop for weak soils... It will growlike crazy, both top and bottom... When it dies in the fall it is able to decay into the soil, making good conditions for next year crop of real grass...

I agree, that using N to produce more biomass that stays onsite, should help with overall OM...

But do you agree that a turf field resembles a cornfield? I often can't tell which is which because they are so similar! The bare and tilled soil between rows and plants is so hard to distinguish, in fact I can't even tell the difference between corn and turf if its sitting on a plate, they are just too similar! People ask me if they are managed differently and I say no, they're both moocots. :laugh:

Kiril
03-24-2011, 09:05 PM
Of course I wouldn't read a study about corn farming to determine SOM correlations to turf management. There is no reason to extrapolate because there are plenty of studies dealing directly with the issue, the only problem is that they prove you dead wrong - and that's why you chose to pick your study. You're a real credit to science Lord Kiril, nice work!

WOW! How does one respond to that level of ignorance? Answer ... you don't .... just let the person live in ignorance because that is where they are comfortable being.

Kiril
03-24-2011, 09:07 PM
But do you agree that a turf field resembles a cornfield? I often can't tell which is which because they are so similar! The bare and tilled soil between rows and plants is so hard to distinguish, in fact I can't even tell the difference between corn and turf if its sitting on a plate, they are just too similar! People ask me if they are managed differently and I say no, they're both moocots. :laugh:

https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/36/6/1821

If N fertilization can have a negative effect on soil C sequestration, the same trend observed for the Morrow Plots should be readily evident from data collected in field studies elsewhere. Such evidence is common in the scientific literature but has seldom been acknowledged, perhaps because N fertilizer practices have been predicated largely on short-term economic gain rather than long-term sustainability. Within the USA Corn Belt, fertilizer N has often been found to increase biomass production while being of little benefit to soil C sequestration, according to studies conducted with various tillage systems in Indiana (Barber, 1979), Iowa (Russell et al., 2005), Kansas (Dodge and Jones, 1948), Kentucky (Blevins et al., 1983), Michigan (Vitosh et al., 1997), Minnesota (Reicosky et al., 2002), Missouri (Smith, 1942), Nebraska (Lesoing and Doran, 1997), North Dakota (Black and Tanaka, 1997), South Dakota (Pikul et al., 2001), and Wisconsin (Motavalli et al., 1992). The same trend has been documented more widely not only for corn (Gusser, 1970; Bloom et al., 1982; Huggins and Fuchs, 1997; Peters et al., 1997; Vanotti et al., 1997; Liang et al., 1998; Clapp et al., 2000; Brye et al., 2002; Wilts et al., 2004) but also for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Dyer, 1902; White, 1927; Rasmussen et al., 1980; Campbell et al., 1991; Jenkinson, 1991; Campbell and Zentner, 1993, 1997; Rasmussen and Parton, 1994; Dalal et al., 1995; Nyborg et al., 1995; Rasmussen and Smiley, 1997; Potter et al., 1998; Izaurralde et al., 2001; Halvorson et al., 2002; Follett et al., 2005; Machado et al., 2006), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) (Jenkinson and Johnston, 1977; Johnston, 1997; Machado et al., 2006), rice (Oryza sativa L.) (Lal, 1986), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) (Cope et al., 1958; Sainju et al., 2005), various mixed cropping systems (Draycott et al., 1978; Christensen and Johnston, 1997; Potter et al., 1998; Sainju et al., 2002, 2006), and pine plantations (Harding and Jokela, 1994; Leggett and Kelting, 2006).


No way to reasonably extrapolate Quack?

phasthound
03-24-2011, 09:30 PM
https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/36/6/1821

If N fertilization can have a negative effect on soil C sequestration, the same trend observed for the Morrow Plots should be readily evident from data collected in field studies elsewhere. Such evidence is common in the scientific literature but has seldom been acknowledged, perhaps because N fertilizer practices have been predicated largely on short-term economic gain rather than long-term sustainability. Within the USA Corn Belt, fertilizer N has often been found to increase biomass production while being of little benefit to soil C sequestration, according to studies conducted with various tillage systems in Indiana (Barber, 1979), Iowa (Russell et al., 2005), Kansas (Dodge and Jones, 1948), Kentucky (Blevins et al., 1983), Michigan (Vitosh et al., 1997), Minnesota (Reicosky et al., 2002), Missouri (Smith, 1942), Nebraska (Lesoing and Doran, 1997), North Dakota (Black and Tanaka, 1997), South Dakota (Pikul et al., 2001), and Wisconsin (Motavalli et al., 1992). The same trend has been documented more widely not only for corn (Gusser, 1970; Bloom et al., 1982; Huggins and Fuchs, 1997; Peters et al., 1997; Vanotti et al., 1997; Liang et al., 1998; Clapp et al., 2000; Brye et al., 2002; Wilts et al., 2004) but also for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Dyer, 1902; White, 1927; Rasmussen et al., 1980; Campbell et al., 1991; Jenkinson, 1991; Campbell and Zentner, 1993, 1997; Rasmussen and Parton, 1994; Dalal et al., 1995; Nyborg et al., 1995; Rasmussen and Smiley, 1997; Potter et al., 1998; Izaurralde et al., 2001; Halvorson et al., 2002; Follett et al., 2005; Machado et al., 2006), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) (Jenkinson and Johnston, 1977; Johnston, 1997; Machado et al., 2006), rice (Oryza sativa L.) (Lal, 1986), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) (Cope et al., 1958; Sainju et al., 2005), various mixed cropping systems (Draycott et al., 1978; Christensen and Johnston, 1997; Potter et al., 1998; Sainju et al., 2002, 2006), and pine plantations (Harding and Jokela, 1994; Leggett and Kelting, 2006).


No way to reasonably extrapolate Quack?

I forgot I wrote one of those papers.

ICT Bill
03-24-2011, 10:11 PM
WOW! How does one respond to that level of ignorance? Answer ... you don't .... just let the person live in ignorance because that is where they are comfortable being.

No actually, you should respond with kindness and respect and apologize

it is ignorance on your part that allows you to have that opinion, sorry but it is true
no one hates you or thinks that you are a bad dude or dudette, just your level of ignorance to entry level people on here is a silly

they are not ignorant because they have no background .....DUUUHHHH they are just trying to learn and ask questions

either be positive or not, I choose positive

starry night
03-24-2011, 10:47 PM
No actually, you should respond with kindness and respect and apologize

it is ignorance on your part that allows you to have that opinion, sorry but it is true
no one hates you or thinks that you are a bad dude or dudette, just your level of ignorance to entry level people on here is a silly

they are not ignorant because they have no background .....DUUUHHHH they are just trying to learn and ask questions

either be positive or not, I choose positive

Wait a minute. Quackgrass is an entry-level person?

phasthound
03-24-2011, 10:59 PM
Wait a minute. Quackgrass is an entry-level person?

All jokes aside, I think you see Bill's point.

starry night
03-25-2011, 08:13 AM
All jokes aside, I think you see Bill's point.

Well, yes and no. Each has an acid tongue for the other. I'm not surprised by anything they say to each other. On the other hand, each speaks reasonably to "entry-level" posters, IMO.

Smallaxe
03-25-2011, 08:36 AM
From the article of Post #21:

"...Within the USA Corn Belt, fertilizer N has often been found to increase biomass production while being of little benefit to soil C sequestration, according to studies conducted with various tillage systems in Indiana..."

Biomass increase is a good thing... "C sequestration" is something different... Soil C relates to Humates eventually, correct? (bash the ignorant guy... now!)

The real point is: N increases biomass, even in a cornfield... :)

Kiril
03-25-2011, 09:10 AM
No actually, you should respond with kindness and respect and apologize

it is ignorance on your part that allows you to have that opinion, sorry but it is true
no one hates you or thinks that you are a bad dude or dudette, just your level of ignorance to entry level people on here is a silly

they are not ignorant because they have no background .....DUUUHHHH they are just trying to learn and ask questions

either be positive or not, I choose positive

WOW! You mean I should respond with the kindness and respect that quack treats me with? Do you also mean that people should make inappropriate comments on a paper they didn't even read?

There is nothing wrong with my posts in this thread. Quack started talking crap along with his usual insinuating bullshiit for no good reason. Did you read the thread, or like Barry, are you just choosing to single me out with your criticism on my forum etiquette? Beyond that, his post was all kinds of ignorant .... and insulting. Why is it you don't have a problem with that Bill? IMO, you are way out of line here. If you feel the need to reprimand people for their forum etiquette, either you treat everyone equally or don't post.

FYI, quack has never treated me with respect from day 1, yet I don't see you or Barry reprimanding him for his posts that are nothing more than personal attacks. Why is that Bill? Is it because he is a customer?

Furthermore, quack is hardly "entry level". He knows enough and speaks intelligently enough for people to listen .... so it is all the more important that his information be accurate. If he doesn't care enough to make sure his information is accurate, then why should he or anyone else complain when that information gets corrected?

That said .... quack didn't ask a question, nor did he express an opinion, he presented a statement as fact. I didn't correct the statement, I just presented a peer reviewed journal article that showed differently. Instead of reading the paper and discussing the results and it's applicability to this industry like a professional and mature adult, quack instead choose to NOT read the publication and make absurd statements in an attempt to discredit it.

Now tell me Bill, is this the how professionals in this industry should conduct themselves on this forum, or any public forum?

Can I assume that you also do not see the relevance of a study looking at organic matter + synthetic N and the related impacts on SOC in a system?

Can I also assume you also do not understand how one can compare different types of monocots with respect to organic matter quality and rooting behavior ... especially those in family Poaceae, which are classified as true grasses? Just in the event you weren't aware of this ... both corn and turf grass are members of Family Poaceae.

IMO, I think quack, barry and now you owe me an apology.

Kiril
03-25-2011, 09:17 AM
From the article of Post #21:

"...Within the USA Corn Belt, fertilizer N has often been found to increase biomass production while being of little benefit to soil C sequestration, according to studies conducted with various tillage systems in Indiana..."

Biomass increase is a good thing... "C sequestration" is something different... Soil C relates to Humates eventually, correct? (bash the ignorant guy... now!)

The real point is: N increases biomass, even in a cornfield... :)

Axe ....biomass in this statement is predominately above ground plant biomass.

SOC is any organic carbon in the soil.

Smallaxe
03-25-2011, 09:22 AM
How do avatars have egos??? Smallaxe doesn't exist... Smallaxe could care less how other avatars feel... I learn something when my avatar gets real information out of other avatars...

Diss this, Clown... :drinkup:

Kiril
03-25-2011, 10:50 AM
either be positive or not, I choose positive

Bill & Barry ..... this is the man you choose to defend, your example of positive and constructive input on this forum ...... and yet somehow you find fault with me presenting and expecting accurate information. I commend you on your choice. :clapping:

Hey s.p.i.c., go lick the glitter of your mom's tits before she passes out. I want you to get your dose of lead for the day.

quackgrass
03-25-2011, 11:13 AM
https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/36/6/1821

If N fertilization can have a negative effect on soil C sequestration, the same trend observed for the Morrow Plots should be readily evident from data collected in field studies elsewhere. Such evidence is common in the scientific literature but has seldom been acknowledged, perhaps because N fertilizer practices have been predicated largely on short-term economic gain rather than long-term sustainability. Within the USA Corn Belt, fertilizer N has often been found to increase biomass production while being of little benefit to soil C sequestration, according to studies conducted with various tillage systems in Indiana (Barber, 1979), Iowa (Russell et al., 2005), Kansas (Dodge and Jones, 1948), Kentucky (Blevins et al., 1983), Michigan (Vitosh et al., 1997), Minnesota (Reicosky et al., 2002), Missouri (Smith, 1942), Nebraska (Lesoing and Doran, 1997), North Dakota (Black and Tanaka, 1997), South Dakota (Pikul et al., 2001), and Wisconsin (Motavalli et al., 1992). The same trend has been documented more widely not only for corn (Gusser, 1970; Bloom et al., 1982; Huggins and Fuchs, 1997; Peters et al., 1997; Vanotti et al., 1997; Liang et al., 1998; Clapp et al., 2000; Brye et al., 2002; Wilts et al., 2004) but also for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Dyer, 1902; White, 1927; Rasmussen et al., 1980; Campbell et al., 1991; Jenkinson, 1991; Campbell and Zentner, 1993, 1997; Rasmussen and Parton, 1994; Dalal et al., 1995; Nyborg et al., 1995; Rasmussen and Smiley, 1997; Potter et al., 1998; Izaurralde et al., 2001; Halvorson et al., 2002; Follett et al., 2005; Machado et al., 2006), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) (Jenkinson and Johnston, 1977; Johnston, 1997; Machado et al., 2006), rice (Oryza sativa L.) (Lal, 1986), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) (Cope et al., 1958; Sainju et al., 2005), various mixed cropping systems (Draycott et al., 1978; Christensen and Johnston, 1997; Potter et al., 1998; Sainju et al., 2002, 2006), and pine plantations (Harding and Jokela, 1994; Leggett and Kelting, 2006).


No way to reasonably extrapolate Quack?

There is no way you can extrapolate this study of tilled farming to turfgrass SOM. When you till up a field it exposes the SOM to oxidation. When you harvest the crops it removes OM. These are huge loses that you would not encounter in turf. Turf covers the soil and we know from numerous studies that proper fertilization increases the SOM to a point of equilibrium. I have plenty of experience with grasslands and can promise you that you'll increase SOM with proper fertilization.

Why don't you look at studies of turf? because it supports my statement of course! And btw my statement was that in grasses, fertilizer+surface applied OM will increase SOM more so than just Surface applied OM alone.

Show me that the statement is wrong - prove it or bow down sucker.

Smallaxe
03-25-2011, 11:13 AM
Axe ....biomass in this statement is predominately above ground plant biomass.

SOC is any organic carbon in the soil.

If organic matter (grass clippings) is left on the lawn, it is eventually translate into SOM, especially with thepresence of worms... Correct?

What the article said, is that it may not do much for SOC, is that true?

Don't really care about 'SOC', in the sense... I am interestted in having more humus in the soil for CE sites, Drainage and water retention capabilities... Grass clippings can do that and N will help...
With focus one that one, single point it should be true... Correct?... :)

quackgrass
03-25-2011, 11:52 AM
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Singh%20Mamta%20Hari%20Om.pdf?osu1187117113


Because you insist that a corn field and turf stand are the same you can read this study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jpln.200620635/abstract

"Farmyard-manure additions for 25 y increased soil organic-matter (SOM) content by 3.8 g kg–1 (13.6%) in the FYM1 treatments and by 7.8 g kg–1 (27.8%) in the FYM2 treatments, compared to a 3.2 g kg–1 decrease (11.4%) in the FYM0 treatments. Overall, the results suggest that mineral fertilizers can maintain high yields, but a combination of mineral fertilizers plus farmyard manure are needed to enhance soil organic-matter levels in this soil type."

Turf SOC
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/41350/1/IND44334726.pdf

More: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13813492

Kiril
03-25-2011, 12:13 PM
There is no way you can extrapolate this study of tilled farming to turfgrass SOM. When you till up a field it exposes the SOM to oxidation. When you harvest the crops it removes OM. These are huge loses that you would not encounter in turf. Turf covers the soil and we know from numerous studies that proper fertilization increases the SOM to a point of equilibrium.

I see Quack ... no way to extrapolate .... no relevance at all.

How about no-till operations? Given you didn't even read the study .... how do you even know the plots were tilled? What about the multitude of other studies referenced that correlates the findings of the linked study? Are all those systems tilled? Do you till a pine tree plantation too? Isn't core aeration effectively tilling the soil .... plug by plug? When you bag your clippings you also remove organic matter. Are you saying that no one bags clippings in this industry?

I have plenty of experience with grasslands and can promise you that you'll increase SOM with proper fertilization.

Then by all means quack, please present your scientifically rigorous studies on these grasslands. I honestly am interested in seeing this data.

Why don't you look at studies of turf?

I'm not the one who keeps bringing them up. Obviously you have reviewed all these studies so it should be relatively easy thing for you to provide references to them. If you had bother to read the study you would have seen where the authors also discussed the inherent problems with other studies that claim the opposite of their findings. Perhaps you would like to comment on that?

And btw my statement was that in grasses, [B]fertilizer+surface applied OM will increase SOM more so than just Surface applied OM alone. /B] Show me that the statement is wrong - prove it or bow down sucker.

I presented a study (which you didn't even read) the demonstrates that synthetic N, even with the organic matter inputs, can lead to a net decrease in SOC. These findings were correlated in a wide variety of different management systems and crops.

If you cannot even read the study, and cannot see the relevance of the findings of this study in turf grass management, then this discussion is over.

Kiril
03-25-2011, 12:49 PM
If organic matter (grass clippings) is left on the lawn, it is eventually translate into SOM, especially with thepresence of worms... Correct?

It eventually end up, in part, in the SOC pool.

What the article said, is that it may not do much for SOC, is that true? Don't really care about 'SOC', in the sense.

SOM is a part of the SOC pool. When you have a lab measure organic matter content, it is most likely a measure a SOC as the typical method of measurement for your basic test is combustion.

I am interestted in having more humus in the soil for CE sites, Drainage and water retention capabilities... Grass clippings can do that and N will help... With focus one that one, single point it should be true... Correct?... :)

It may or may not, that was the point of posting the study. One cannot assume that SOC will increase with synthetic N fertilization. Quack made a statement stating it WILL lead to an increase. I posted an extremely well referenced study with a multitude of correlating studies showing one cannot assume it will, and that in fact it could lead to a net decrease in SOC over time.

quackgrass
03-25-2011, 01:53 PM
Read it and weep kiril,

Soil Organic Carbon Input from
Urban Turfgrasses
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/41350/1/IND44334726.pdf

Kiril
03-25-2011, 02:02 PM
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jpln.200620635/abstract

The "study" suffers from at least one of the problems the authors of the study I referenced noted .... too shallow of a sample depth as noted below.

https://www.soils.org/publications/jeq/articles/36/6/1821#ref-56

In contrast to the foregoing evidence, reports that N fertilization can increase SOC sequestration are by no means uncommon in the literature. Typically, such findings do not meet the fundamental requirement for baseline data in assessing SOC changes over time (e.g., Jenkinson, 1991; Campbell et al., 2000; VandenBygaart and Angers, 2006) but rely on a comparison relative to an unfertilized control (e.g., Larson et al., 1972; Havlin et al., 1990; Malhi et al., 1997, 2002; Solberg et al., 1997; Dormaar and Carefoot, 1998; Raun et al., 1998; Nyborg et al., 1999; Liebig et al., 2002). The same erroneous conclusion could be reached if this approach were applied to the 2005 data reported in Table 2 because soil C content was often greater for fertilized than unfertilized subplots. Misinterpretations can also arise when (i) inorganic fertilizer inputs are confounded by current or previous manure practices (e.g., Liang and MacKenzie, 1992; Darmody and Peck, 1997), (ii) SOC data represent only a very limited depth of surface soil (e.g., Varvel, 1994; Solberg et al., 1997), or (iii) the study period is inadequate for detecting SOC changes (e.g., Liang and MacKenzie, 1992; Varvel, 1994; Dormaar and Carefoot, 1998). Moreover, N fertilization can have a positive effect on SOC sequestration if acidity generated during NH4
+ oxidation is not controlled, thereby impeding C decomposition (e.g., Fog, 1988; McAndrew and Malhi, 1992; Ismail et al., 1994; Malhi et al., 1997; Vanotti et al., 1997).

Furthermore it is not a journal publication. Please keep your references to journal publications.

Because you insist that a corn field and turf stand are the same you can read this study:

Where did I say or insist they were the same Quack. Another case of you putting words in my mouth.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...20635/abstract

Good for you quack, you found a study that showed an increase .... I think. I don't have access to this study, so I can't comment on it or potential problems with methodology, nor do I know what the treatments noted entail. However, this directly related study notes some interesting details left out of the abstract you linked.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4ngca2haa044l0t/

Soil organic C (SOC) content can increase by managing land use practices in which the rates of organic C input exceed those of organic C mineralization. Understanding the changes in SOC content of Black soils (mainly Typic Halpudoll) in northeast China is necessary for sustainable using of soil resources there. We used the RothC model to estimate SOC levels of Black soils under monoculture cropping corn in a long-term fertilization trial at Gongzhuling, Jilin Province, China. The model outputs for the changes in SOC were compared with measured data in this long-term fertilization/manure trial. The sound performance of model in simulating SOC changes suggests that RothC is feasible with Black soils in the temperate climatic region of northeast China. The modeled and measured results indicated that the treatment without fertilizer/farmyard manure (FYM) addition led to a continuous decline in SOC during the study period and N and NPK fertilization were inadequate to maintain the SOC levels in the plow layer (upper 20 cm) unless FYM was added under the current conventional management associated with no above-ground crop residues returning into the soil. Soil organic carbon could follow the same path of decline if the same management practices are maintained. Model results indicate that returning above-ground crop residues to the soil from 2002 to 2022 would increase SOC by 26% for the treatment without fertilization addition, 40% for N treatment, 45% for NPK treatment, and 38% and 46% for N and NPK treatments with FYM addition, compared to the levels in the corresponding treatments in 2002. The simulation results suggest that the RothC model is a feasible tool to assess SOC trend under different management practices, and returning above-ground crop residues into the soil would lead to a remarkable increase in SOC of Black soils in the region.

Can you please comment on the red text and the percentages reported for the model simulation, especially given the model was validated against the study you linked.

Beyond all this, this study in no way invalidates the findings of the study I posted.

Turf SOC
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/41350/1/IND44334726.pdf

Irrelevant and inapplicable to this discussion. No organic matter was top dressed, all plots received the same amount of N fertilizer (i.e. no control with respect to N)

All plots were fertilized with 150 kg ha−1 N annually from 2002 to 2005.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13813492

Same thing as previous study. No indication that the study looked at changes in SOC strictly as a function of synthetic N applications, nor does it indicate it looked at top dressing + synthetic N per your initial definitive statement. Given I don't have access to this study as well, I can't comment any further on it other than it is inapplicable to this discussion.

So you potentially have found a single study here that is applicable to the discussion. Good job.

Kiril
03-25-2011, 02:04 PM
Read it and weep kiril,

Soil Organic Carbon Input from
Urban Turfgrasses
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/41350/1/IND44334726.pdf

See comment on this already linked study.

quackgrass
03-25-2011, 02:19 PM
See comment on this already linked study.

Show me a study that shows topdressing + fertilizing decreases SOM in grass sites.

That is all you would have to, seems simple doesn't it?

Like I said, over 300 square miles of revegetation work using compost alone, or with various fertilizers has proven to me that fertility plays a huge part in raising SOM levels in grasses. I know for a fact that plots receiving just compost raised SOM levels less so than plots receiving compost + fertilizer.

You can fight this from your desk by using examples of anything but grass studies if you want, but its clear as day you have nothing but jealousy and arrogance to display at this point.

Kiril
03-25-2011, 02:47 PM
Show me a study that shows topdressing + fertilizing decreases SOM in grass sites.

Already presented a study that is potentially relevant in any managed system, including turf grass. How about you read it and the ~ 170 citations before you post again. Furthermore I never said it wouldn't lead to an increase in SOC as you are inferring ..... I said you can't assume it will lead to an increase as you stated. Why exactly is it so hard for you to admit the possibility exists, especially given the study I linked? With all your "experience", why haven't you learned to not speak in absolutes when discussing biological systems?

That is all you would have to, seems simple doesn't it?

Can you point me to a turf grass research project with same time range of data as the Morrow plots?

Like I said, over 300 square miles of revegetation work using compost alone, or with various fertilizers has proven to me that fertility plays a huge part in raising SOM levels in grasses. I know for a fact that plots receiving just compost raised SOM levels less so than plots receiving compost + fertilizer.

Still waiting on those scientifically rigorous studies you performed that validates this and your claim that a top dressed OM + synthetic N will (always) lead to an increase in SOC, per your continued argument here.

You can fight this from your desk by using examples of anything but grass studies if you want, but its clear as day you have nothing but jealousy and arrogance to display at this point.

Hmmmm, all because I understand that A + B does not necessarily lead to C.

OK Quack, I guess we are done here. :rolleyes:

OH and BTW Bill and Barry .... take note of your boy and his forum etiquette.

quackgrass
03-25-2011, 03:03 PM
45 years isn't enough huh?

https://www.agronomy.org/publications/aj/abstracts/94/4/930

Kiril
03-25-2011, 03:21 PM
45 years isn't enough huh?

https://www.agronomy.org/publications/aj/abstracts/94/4/930

See comments posted on this already linked study. Furthermore, this study does not even come close to representing a controlled research facility such as the Morrow plots.