Hi, Whales are very slow growing and reproducing animals and would not be a quick store of co2. While the ngo community would welcome support in protecting wild whales and helping populations re-grow, i anticipate huge resistance to the word 'ranching' as it suggests captivity. Please consider wording which supports exisiting whale cionservation methods. Thanks Emily. Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
-----Original Message----- From: Greg Rau <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:05:01 To: Michael Hayes<[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers OK, thanks Michael. I'll tell my squadron of B 52s hold off aerial bombing of the N hemisphere with earthworms until we get more information. As for whales I'm a big fan of whale ranching, especially if carbon credits are involved - see earlier posts. Greg >________________________________ > From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 12:27 PM >Subject: Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers > > > >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 > > >"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]> 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& Shenglei FuAffiliationsContributionsCor responding author >>>, >>>Deborah A. Neher,Jianxiong Li >>>Roger A. Burke,Jianping Wu, >>>Paul F. Hendrix,Lauren E. Dame, >>> >>>Weixin Zhang,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 geoengineerin...@ googlegroups.com. >>>To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups. com. >>>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. -- 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.
