Terra Preta - The parent thread which started it all

[Michaelangelica]

Care please. That's soil carbon. Also the carbon in glomalin molecules is fairly insignificant (4-5% of total soil C at best) compared to the carbon trapped in glomalin-based aggregates. Hence "hiding place" in the USDA article's title. It is the aggregates that matter, just as it is aggregates (whether they turn out to be glomalin-based or not) that matter most to terra preta's properties.

 

M

I am not sure I understand.

So the carbon "in" glomalin is in the soil aggregates that the filaments trap-not actually a part of the living glomalin itself. Is that right?

 

So why talk about glomalin holding 30% or so of the soil's carbon. Are "aggregates" only made from carbon?? Surely not

 

If it is a symbiotic relationship with plants how do you tell when one starts and the other ends?

 

Why is glomalin seen as a carbon sink?

 

This implies a high level of interdependence between the fungus and the root, so that the former is integrated into the root system and becomes part of it, depending on the host plant for its development, and the latter may also become highly dependent on the fungus, forming a compact, homogenous system. This is called a dual organism.

. . .

Glomalin agglomerates 27% of the total carbon on average,

. . .

ts capacity as a sink for the Earth’s carbon, extracting it from the atmosphere

Micorrizas

[Michaelangelica]

This is out of date now, having been based on a large one-off expeirmental increase in CO2. More realistic gradual increases do not have a significant effect. (Klironomos et al (2005) Nature 433(7026) pp.621-4)

I read a New Zealand study where levels of Mycorrhizae were elevated greatly along a geological fault in the soil that was spewing out CO2 gas. I don't think I can find it again but will look.

They also quoted a number of other studies where CO2 dissolved in water promoted soil Mycorrhizae growth greatly.

It seems the soil likes soda too:)

 

PS (a little later)

Can't find NZ article but these Google hits seem to run counter to what you say.

 

(I find it a sad reflection on scientific inquiry when fashion is quoted as a reason for not believing some bit of science or other.

To be a fashionable scientist one needs to believe in the 'newest' not the old "out-of-date' stuff.)

 

CO2 Science CO2 Science

Yet augmented soil carbon sequestration is but the beginning of benefits that can be expected to be provided by CO2-enhanced AMF growth and glomalin ...

The amount of fungal-produced glomalin in the soils of the CO2-enriched treatments in all three of the ecosystems they studied was greater than that observed in the soils of corresponding ambient CO2 treatments

. . .

to have soil glomalin concentrations increase by fully 5-fold as a consequence of less than a doubling of the air's CO2 content is a truly mind-boggling benefit.

CO2 Science - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Blackwell Synergy - Ecol Letters, Volume 3 Issue 6 Page 475 ...

Soil concentrations of glomalin are very highly correlated with soil ... between plant growth and soil nutrient cycling under elevated CO2: a meta-analysis. ...

Blackwell Synergy - Ecol Letters, Volume 3 Issue 6 Page 475 - November 2000 (Article Abstract) - Similar pages

AGNET AUGUST 12, 1999 >From the editor Rooting for acid U.S. warns ...

Total glomalin and immunoreactive glomalin concentrations in soil increased in both grasslands with elevated CO2 (Table 1). Glomalin concentration in ...

http://www.foodcontamination.ca/agnet/1999/8-1999/ag-08-12-99-01.txt - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

Redwood Reader

Much of the glomalin stored in the soil has been released to the atmosphere ... Experiments with raised CO2 show rapid growth of trees and even faster rates ...

redwoodreader.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_redwoodreader_archive.html - 108k - Cached - Similar pages

Redwood Reader

I have been advocating for a high level study to read these few USDA reports and check out the advantages of increased CO2 on plant growth and glomalin ...

redwoodreader.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_redwoodreader_archive.html - 90k - Cached - Similar pages

 

Found it:)

mentioned in first article a spring sorry

In a subsequent study conducted in New Zealand, Rillig et al. (2000) examined several characteristics of AMF associated with the roots of plants that had been growing for at least 20 years along a natural CO2 gradient near a CO2-emmitting spring.

They found that the elevated CO2 significantly increased percent root colonization by AMF in a linear fashion - and by nearly 4-fold! - in going from 370 to 670 ppm.

In addition, fungal hyphal length experienced a linear increase of over 3-fold along the same CO2 gradient, while total soil glomalin experienced a linear increase of approximately 5-fold.

No there was a NZ vent (lots of them in NZ very smelly place in parts.)

My memory did not fail me:)

 

 

These observations lead one to wonder if CO2-induced increases in soil-stabilizing fungal activities might lead to increases in soil carbon sequestration.

A potential answer comes from another study conducted near a natural CO2 vent in New Zealand, where Ross et al. (2000) measured soil carbon © and nitrogen (N) contents in areas exposed to atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the order of 440 to 460 ppm and other areas exposed to concentrations on [/b]the order of 510 to 900 ppm

[Michaelangelica]

How to kill and measure Glomalin

Soil terrorism?:) :)

society soil science sari

ANALYSIS OF GLOMALIN-mycorrhizal fungi in soil and in roots:

 

Glomalin is a glycoprotein produced abundantly on hyphae and spores of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in soil and in roots. Shortly after we Sara Wright and I collaborated on development of a monoclonal antibody specific for Paraglomus occultum, we attempted to produce monoclonal antibodies against other AM fungi. With more recent species (e.g. Glomus intraradices), antibody cell lines were broader in specificity but restricted to Glomeromycota. Using these cell lines, Sara Wright and co-workers discovered they reacted specifically against glomalin. These antibodies then became a tool to detect and quantify glomalin associated with fungal biomass and in a wide range of soils

[malcolmf]

Susanna Hecht's Powerpoint presentation on Kayapo Soil Management shows how dark earth is made today. Very, very, very different from any method mooted in this forum. What you see is terra mulata formation rather than terra preta, but remember they have similar carbon contents and TP was probably made in a similar way but with mostly village refuse as input.

 

Remind me why we think a different method based on charcoal production and soil tillage would also work, i.e. permanently sequester carbon and increase soil fertility. Perhaps we have made a jump from "It's got black carbon in it" to "They must have buried charcoal" without thinking too much about that.

 

M

[malcolmf]

How to kill and measure Glomalin

I doubt it. Antibody reaction is a classic technique for detecting the presence of a protein. You are associating "antibody" with the pop-sci meaning that relates to how immune systems kill pathogens.

 

Glomalin is destroyed by tilllage and its production is inhibited by bare soil and excess phosphorus, according to Sara Wright, Kris Nichols and others. So if you make TP, it might be a good idea not to dig it or fertilise it or leave it uncovered.

 

M

[RBlack]

To Malcomf, You have a very good point on how Terra Preta was made. I have inclosed a set of notes (first draft) that I will be using in a talk on March 15 to a combination of the local Sierra Club and and as many garden clubs as we can get to come. This is the introduction part. I will also show how to make charcoal at home and finish with the carbon sequestration piece.

 

I am trying to char up my kitchen wates and am going to char (if possible), cow and horse manure, and pine needles both dried and fresh. I am working on a way to make some of my char with a lower ph and that is why I will try the pine needles. All this is experimental and for every sucess I have I also have something that ends up like....(cow and horse manure).

 

RB

 

Charcoal as a soil amendment: The Terra Preta effect.

 

Between 400 and 1500 years ago the Indians of the Amazonian basin created a type of soil that we now call Terra Preta de Indio or Black Earth. These soils are characterized by their high charcoal/carbon content, increased level of soil organic matter, resistance to nutrient leaching, and high fertility for plant/crop growth. The one factor in common that all Terra Preta soils have is a high level of charcoal (up to 40%), and it is the physical/chemical properties of the carbon in the charcoal that are responsible for Terra Preta's unique structure.

Carbon has the ability to make long chain molecules, adsorb onto its surface both solid and gaseous compounds, and is resistant to environmental decay. When carbon is in the form of charcoal it also retains moisture, makes an environment for microbial life, and improves soil texture. Carbon is the bases for all life and there are more carbon compounds than all the other elements combined. In soil carbon exists in unstable easy to use and recyclable forms in microbes and soil organic matter, and highly resistant stable forms in charcoal. Through the process of weathering and oxidation stable charcoal/carbon will eventually break down into labile forms but this process depends on many environmental factors that differ between soils due to their microbial makeup, parent material, and physical structure of the charcoal/carbon. Not all charcoal is the same as its charring temperatures (350 to 900 degrees), and its parent stock (woody versus non-woody material), give differing types of charcoal/carbon unique properties and nutrients when added to soil.

There is extensive debate in how the Amazonian Indians created Terra Preta soils as their cultures did not survive the initial meeting with European explorers so we have no first hand knowledge of the process. What can be inferred is that these people used their garbage and latrine wastes to provide organic matter that along with charcoal/carbons unique properties created Terra Preta soils. We don’t know that exact process but in a hot humid environment garbage and latrine wastes would start to smell, attract bugs and animals, and be a source of disease. The Amazonian people most likely found that adding ash and charcoal or periodically burning the top of the garbage/latrine piles would get rid of the smell, alleviate the bugs/animals, and minimize disease. The addition of charcoal in one way or another to their wastes was a hygienic practice that Amazonian Indians engaged in to keep their villages clean and healthy.

What the Indians also found was that the combination of organic matter/charcoal created fertile mix that when added to the nutrient poor soils of the region made them much more productive. In essence they made compost with the unique feature of a very high charcoal/carbon content that gave the soil greater nutrient/water retention while modifying the soil texture for better drainage and aeration.

To create Terra Preta type of soils what is needed is to replicate the practices of the Amazonian Indians. The first is to create charcoal with many unique properties based on charring temperatures, what material is charred, and whether the material is totally charred or partially charred. This was not a process that was exact for the Amazonians nor should it be today as the variability and variety of the charcoal is what provides both stable and unstable carbon and wide range of nutrients in many different forms and compounds. The second factor is what material did the Amazonians char and the anthropological evidence is that they charred or partially charred everything, plants, dead animal, village debris, garbage, their own latrine wastes, and the remains of their most important source of protein, fish.

Village sites and Terra Preta areas most often occur on bluffs near rivers which provided the Amazonians both their major source of protein and their major source of transportation. Even though their Terra Preta areas were still productive if the course of the river changed then the villages would relocate to be close to fishing areas and their transportation source, the river. What the large amount of fish in their diet provides for Terra Preta soils is a source of calcium and phosphorous that ended up in their garbage/latrine areas and then into their soil and back into the plants that they grew. In replicating Terra Preta soils there needs to be a source of calcium and phosphorous added to insure that the conditions and materials that originally created these soils are duplicated today.

 

RBlack (first draft)

[Michaelangelica]

Susanna Hecht's Powerpoint presentation on Kayapo Soil Management shows how dark earth is made today. Very, very, very different from any method mooted in this forum. What you see is terra mulata formation rather than terra preta, but remember they have similar carbon contents and TP was probably made in a similar way but with mostly village refuse as input.

M

 

The presentation has nice pics. but is a bit light on detail

Do you know the relative amounts of charcoal in mulata and preta?

(preta is for every 1 meter of depth of soil, is between 147 and 506 tonnes of charcoal per hectare)

Antibody reaction is a classic technique for detecting the presence of a protein.

Could you please explain?

[RBlack]

To Everyone on the Terra Preta site,

 

I have been busy this last 2-3 weeks and finally caught up (but not yet digested), all the posts in the last 10 pages. The quality of the posts and the science behind them is fantastic!!! I am sure that Johannes and Bruno are reading (or having a grad student read), this site, and our ideas, after being suitably massaged, will show up in research and papers. They belong to the "publish or perish" world while we do the grunt work and actually get our hands black. (Do you think either of them have a set of "charcoal making" clothes that sit in the work room smelling of campfire?). Of course we wouldn't be where we are without their papers, research, and efforts so I applaud the efforts and they can have some of my ideas (citations please!).

 

Special kudos to Malcolmf for the recent excellent posts and always to Michaelangelica (that’s a "girl's name isn't it? Excellent post that one!), who is like the glomalin of this site.

 

Some replies to everyone’s recent work:

 

To davidgmills, the charcoal cruncher works well on pure charcoal but when I used it on partial biochar it is still not sturdy enough. What I am trying to do on one of my project is take a solid clay soil and add charcoal and SOM to amend the texture of the soil. I am after larger pieces of char and want some of the still wood part and the interface between the charcoal and the wood. My newest charcoal pulverization method is to put it in a box and take my newest invention (3 two by fours nailed together so a 6 x4), and smash the crap out of it. This seems to work well and I do it on a windy day so the soot particles blow away.

 

To Phillip Small and Malcolmf in reply to your post on page 37 re: types of char and surface properties of the char. See my views above and this article by Johannes Lehmann: Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological .... page 355. Also to davidgmills

That seems to be what I am observing, as I am not attempting to go to great lengths to pulverize my charcoal.

note the particle size comments on p. 355. This gets into the idea that the Amazonian Indians didn't screen their char through a #50 screen but just sort of used it as is. The whole idea is that we don't know what kind of char, what temperature, what size works best but I think we need all of it!

http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/PlantSoil%20249,%20343-357,%202003%20Lehmann.pdf

 

To Phillip Small very bottom of page 37 on N2O, CO2, and methane emissions form Terra Preta soil. There does seem to be a fair amount of evidence that the charcoal in the soil adsorbs some of the microbial gas emissions. I am currently trying to find articles and evidence that when the charcoal does this it may possibly use the oxygen to oxidize some of the stable charcoal into more labile forms for the microbes to use. Not a lot of information out there and what there is talks around the subject. We do know that charcoal does breakdown but the exact methods are still unknown. If anyone has any information on this please post.

 

To all on the glomalin/humus ideas. My background is in Physics and via the chemistry that I have had I remember that reactions want to become stable. I think that same principle applies to soil. The high CEC of Terra Preta means that there are lots of ions wanting to go lots of places and bind to lots of sites. That’s one of the things that make TP good for plants. In this process the side chains of the fresh charcoal become oxidized and the charcoal becomes more recalcitrant, and the organic molecules in the soil head towards humus/humin and (I haven't read enough to be sure), possible towards the glomalin that has been mentioned in previous posts.

 

To all:

 

In all my research on Terra Preta the one thing that is constant is the charcoal/carbon in the soil. In looking at the physical and chemical properties of carbon the one main fact is that it adsorbs both solid and gaseous compounds. That’s why activated charcoal has so many applications where it is used to purify both water and air.

 

What the charcoal in the soil does it prevent leaching by water and gas emissions from microbial respiration so that what is in the soil stays in the soil except for plant growth. Of course we do get some leaching and some gas emissions so the process is not perfect.

 

When we calculate how much carbon we can sequester into the soil we need to take into account the reduction of CO2 emissions that carbon in Terra Preta prevents and the fact that is it then stored as soil organic matter.

 

So when calculating the carbon sequestration benefits we need to take into account:

1. actual carbon put into the soil

2. reduction of CO2 emissions and increase of SOM (made from carbon/stores carbon)

3. the amount of carbon taking from the atmosphere by increased biomass production due to soil fertility (if charred and put back into the soil)

 

So for storage of carbon Terra Preta is better than we thought!

 

Thanks to all,

RB

[RBlack]

To all:

 

I tested the link to the Lehmann paper and just got a white screen. I get a lot of that when I google certain papers. Anybody have an idea why that is? I don't think its my computer because I accessed that Lehmann paper to get the address right before I sent it.

 

I will try again. Here is the best paper on Humus that I have found. Forgot to include it in the above post.

 

Humus:Still a Mystery

http://http://users.ids.net/~nofari/tnf_hums.htm

 

Enjoy,

RB

[davidgmills]

On the day before Valentine's day, I bought my wife some herbs and put them in a single pot with my homemade terra preta.

 

The news is bad for my cilantro. The rosemary is doing great.

 

What did I do wrong to my cilantro? Soil is well drained. TP stayed surprisingly moist. I am wondering if cilantro can not stand the excess water retention of TP. Any ideas?

[davidgmills]

I have read numerous times here to not disturb the soil much or turn it.

 

While that may be a good idea if the charcoal is pulverized, from what I see it would take a lot longer to get lump sized charcoal degraded to particle size if the soil is not frequently tilled.

 

I intentionally did not pulverize my lump charcoal just to see how quickly it would degrade into smaller pieces. What I find is that constantly turning it exposes the charcoal to new soil and it degrades much faster.

[malcolmf]

I am trying to char up my kitchen wates and am going to char (if possible), cow and horse manure, and pine needles both dried and fresh.

 

RB. I'd stick to dried as much as possible. Simple physics. Energy is required to drive off moisture. This is the first stage of the process, during which the temperature stays at just above 100 degC and no carbonisation can occur. The amount of energy can be precisely calculated from the specific heat of water and the latent heat of vapourisation for that quantity of water. In a traditional method like yours, the energy must come from the combustion of some of the feedstock. You could easily waste a third of your feedstock if it is not dried.

 

So I suggest that you separate harder feedstock (including pine needles) and let it dry, preferably under cover. Maybe if you manage to organise a group from your audience you could even use the heat or emissions from one burn to help dry the next (e.g. Making charcoal and preserving wood). Compost softer stuff or just chop it up raw as the Amerindians would, and mulch it on top of the char. Let the worms take it down for you and the fungi that will colonise the charcoal turn it rapidly into available nutrients.

 

One experiment is to compare mulch without char and mulch with char in adjacent patches. I've read somewhere (I forget where) that char speeds decomposition.

 

Sounds like there could be some really choice smells coming from your burn:D

 

M

[malcolmf]

I am trying to char up my kitchen wates and am going to char (if possible), cow and horse manure, and pine needles both dried and fresh.

 

RB. I'd stick to dried as much as possible. Simple physics. Energy is required to drive off moisture. This is the first stage of the process, during which the temperature stays at just above 100 degC and no carbonisation can occur. The amount of energy can be precisely calculated from the specific heat of water and the latent heat of vapourisation for that quantity of water. In a traditional method like yours, the energy must come from the combustion of some of the feedstock. You could easily waste a third of your feedstock if it is not dried.

 

So I suggest that you separate harder feedstock (including pine needles) and let it dry, preferably under cover. Maybe if you manage to organise a group from your audience you could even use the heat or emissions from one burn to help dry the next (e.g. Making charcoal and preserving wood). Compost softer stuff or just chop it up raw as the Amerindians would, and mulch it on top of the char. Let the worms take it down for you and the fungi that will colonise the charcoal turn it rapidly into available nutrients.

 

One experiment is to compare mulch without char and mulch with char in adjacent patches. I've read somewhere (I forget where) that char speeds decomposition.

 

Sounds like there could be some really choice smells coming from your burn:D

 

M

[malcolmf]

The presentation has nice pics. but is a bit light on detail

I posted the link only because some of the pictures tell us more than a thousand words could. For the words, see Hecht & Posey quoted several pages above, or Hecht in Amazonian Dark Earths.

Do you know the relative amounts of charcoal in mulata and preta?

(preta is for every 1 meter of depth of soil, is between 147 and 506 tonnes of charcoal per hectare)

According to Kampf et al in Amazonian Dark Earths the median soil organic carbon of preta is 36.7 g kg-1 and of mulata is 21.0 g kg-1. To convert your units, they give preta's min and max as 24 and 98 g kg-1. I can't find a figure for actual charcoal.

Could you please explain?

No. But if you google "immunoreactive protein assay" you can see how standard it is. There are several kinds of assay, and my understanding is that immunoreactive glomalin is only a part of total glomalin and indicates more recently formed stuff, which helps to work out turnover rates. To me this also says that glomalin must be a catch-all word for something whose true detailed composition has yet to be determined.

 

M

[malcolmf]

The presentation has nice pics. but is a bit light on detail

I posted the link only because some of the pictures tell us more than a thousand words could. For the words, see Hecht & Posey quoted several pages above, or Hecht in Amazonian Dark Earths.

Do you know the relative amounts of charcoal in mulata and preta?

(preta is for every 1 meter of depth of soil, is between 147 and 506 tonnes of charcoal per hectare)

According to Kampf et al in Amazonian Dark Earths the median soil organic carbon of preta is 36.7 g kg-1 and of mulata is 21.0 g kg-1. To convert your units, they give preta's min and max as 24 and 98 g kg-1. I can't find a figure for actual charcoal.

Could you please explain?

No. But if you google "immunoreactive protein assay" you can see how standard it is. There are several kinds of assay, and my understanding is that immunoreactive glomalin is only a part of total glomalin and indicates more recently formed stuff, which helps to work out turnover rates. To me this also says that glomalin must be a catch-all word for something whose true detailed composition has yet to be determined.

 

M

[malcolmf]

I have read numerous times here to not disturb the soil much or turn it.

 

While that may be a good idea if the charcoal is pulverized, from what I see it would take a lot longer to get lump sized charcoal degraded to particle size if the soil is not frequently tilled.

 

I intentionally did not pulverize my lump charcoal just to see how quickly it would degrade into smaller pieces. What I find is that constantly turning it exposes the charcoal to new soil and it degrades much faster.

 

David

I understand this. But you need to find out whether you are making terra preta or just burying charcoal to little effect on your soil fertility or the atmosphere. Digging could be destroying the soil structures and organisms that increase fertility and protect the carbon from decomposition. If so, what's the point in digging? Glaser writes in Amazonian Dark Earths (p153, without himself giving a reference) that "it is known that ADEs were not tilled by the native population", and this matches Hecht's present-day observations. Her observations and soil analyses suggest that the char they added was not lumpwood charcoal, just the residue from all manner of incomplete burning.

 

Try using crushed char under mulch and let worms do the burying for you. They may be slow but my word are they thorough.

 

M

[malcolmf]

I have read numerous times here to not disturb the soil much or turn it.

 

While that may be a good idea if the charcoal is pulverized, from what I see it would take a lot longer to get lump sized charcoal degraded to particle size if the soil is not frequently tilled.

 

I intentionally did not pulverize my lump charcoal just to see how quickly it would degrade into smaller pieces. What I find is that constantly turning it exposes the charcoal to new soil and it degrades much faster.

 

David

I understand this. But you need to find out whether you are making terra preta or just burying charcoal to little effect on your soil fertility or the atmosphere. Digging could be destroying the soil structures and organisms that increase fertility and protect the carbon from decomposition. If so, what's the point in digging? Glaser writes in Amazonian Dark Earths (p153, without himself giving a reference) that "it is known that ADEs were not tilled by the native population", and this matches Hecht's present-day observations. Her observations and soil analyses suggest that the char they added was not lumpwood charcoal, just the residue from all manner of incomplete burning.

 

Try using crushed char under mulch and let worms do the burying for you. They may be slow but my word are they thorough.

 

M