Greg, Ron et al., One issue with earthworms is that they can consume forest floor nutrients useful to the macro flora. Here In the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, where earthworms are not indigenous yet have become ubiquitous, tree growth rates have been adversely effected by the introduction of worms. Here is a sample of available media literature: Invasive Earthworms <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html>
*"All of the terrestrial earthworms in Minnesota are non-native, invasive species from Europe and Asia (There is a native aquatic species that woodcock eat). At least fifteen non-native terrestrial species have been introduced so far. Studies conducted by the University of Minnesota and forest managers show that at least seven species are invading our hardwood forests and causing the loss of tree seedlings, wildflowers, and ferns.".* * * This may be another case which illustrates that the balancing act of Nature's matrix of relationships is not well suited for 'system by system' treatment. If one relationship is broken it does seem to cause an unraveling of other seemingly unrelated relationships. Another example of this type of matrix disruption is shown by the over harvesting of Baleen Whales; which has now led to a significant decrease in oceanic CDR via loss of macro algae. Earth system science may be the ultimate chess game. Best, Michael * * On Friday, October 18, 2013 11:31:26 AM UTC-7, Ron wrote: > > Greg and list: > > This is my first day back from the 4-day biochar conference (went > well). I have read the abstract and the supplementary material, but not > yet the full article (copy would be much appreciated). I am pretty sure > the authors are encouraging vermiculture for CDR reasons - but that the > authors did not consider biochar in their studies. I am also pretty sure > that worms prefer soil with biochar augmentation. So to answer Greg's > question, the answer is probably "no" - but I need to read the full article > to give a better answer. > > There is a fair amount of literature on the coupling of worms and > biochar, but I found none addressing "better than" and don't think this > particular article will help. Both worms and biochar increase carbon above > and below ground. That is where the real CDR will be taking place. > > Ron > > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > Better than biochar? > Greg > > > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html > Earthworms facilitate carbon sequestration through unequal amplification > of carbon stabilization compared with mineralization > Yuanhu > Shao<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-8> > & Shenglei > Fu<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-9> > Affiliations<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#affil-auth> > Contributions<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#contrib-auth>Corresponding > > author<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#corres-auth> > , > Deborah A. > Neher<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-6> > ,Jianxiong > Li<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-7> > Roger A. > Burke<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-4> > ,Jianping > Wu<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-5> > , > Paul F. > Hendrix<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-2> > ,Lauren E. > Dame<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-3> > , > Weixin > Zhang<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-1> > , > Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2576 doi:10.1038/ncomms3576 > Received 28 April 2013 Accepted 09 September 2013 Published 15 October > 2013 > Article tools > Abstract > A recent review concluded that earthworm presence increases CO2 emissions > by 33% but does not affect soil organic carbon stocks. However, the > findings are controversial and raise new questions. Here we hypothesize > that neither an increase in CO2 emission nor in stabilized carbon would > entirely reflect the earthworms’ contribution to net carbon sequestration. > We show how two widespread earthworm invaders affect net carbon > sequestration through impacts on the balance of carbon mineralization and > carbon stabilization. Earthworms accelerate carbon activation and induce > unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with carbon > mineralization, which generates an earthworm-mediated ‘carbon trap’. We > introduce the new concept of sequestration quotient to quantify the unequal > processes. The patterns of CO2 emission and net carbon sequestration are > predictable by comparing sequestration quotient values between treatments > with and without earthworms. This study clarifies an ecological mechanism > by which earthworms may regulate the terrestrial carbon sink. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
