Expert section - MYTHBUSTING - Nitrogen fixers and Deep Tap Rooted Nutrient Accumulators
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- If anyone finds this video is a little too heavy, I suggest checking out a few videos as a primer to watching this one:
The soil microbiology video here: • A complete guide to so...
and the permaculture guide to guilds (where I parrot some of this stuff!!): • A comprehensive guide ... .
Some of these topics will be discussed at an medium-expert level. And what I mean by that is, in order to get deeper into these topics, it's assumed that the viewer already has a firm grasp of some of these deeper concepts such as how nitrogen fixing works, what a deep tap rooted nutrient accumulator is, etc. In fact, did you know that since coining the term "deep tap rooted nutrient accumulator", Robert Kourik, who originally coined the term in his book "Designing and Maintaining Your Edible Landscape", actually himself spent the rest of his career backing off on that phrase.
Now, there's a difference between a plant bio-accumulating nutrients and those nutrients coming from DEEP down via the taproot. There's plenty of research on various plant's bioaccumulation, such as this one from Zimbabwe: www.researchga.... But these articles only talk about the nutrient composition of the plants, and don't address some assumptions made in permaculture about WHERE those nutrients actually came from.
But first we discuss nitrogen fixation, and the very high likelihood that it's a myth that we can chop and drop a nitrogen fixer and release nodules under the ground. But also why that may not matter. And if it does matter, how to do it PROPERLY. And speaking of "proper", lets ignore starting sentences with prepositions and conjunctions).
Thanks for watching.
______________________
Want to become a member and earn perks? Check out our membership program here: / @canadianpermaculturel...
You can now also find Canadian Permaculture Legacy on Odysee here: odysee.com/@Ca...
Odysee will automatically import any videos from here, and is a blockchain streaming service - so once my videos are there, they are there forever. Unhackable. Permissionless.
Want CPL merch? CanadianPermac...
Doing shopping on Amazon? If you start your shopping by clicking on my Amazon affiliate link, it costs you nothing (not even a penny) but I receive a small commission of anything you buy. The link here takes you to my website blog on my favorite permaculture books. However, if you click on any link there as your starting point, then go buy ANYTHING, it helps support me.
permaculturele...
Or help me plant trees directly through Patreon by becoming a Patron: www.patreon.co...
Moving to the country to start a new life. Young Family trades sodgrass for a horse farm over at Barn Boots and Country Roots:
/ @barnbootsandcountryroots
For great recipes, cooking, storing, canning, and growing tips, check out Gardening in the North:
/ @gardeninginthenorth
Music credits:
Epidemic sound: www.epidemicso...
Closer by Jay Someday | / jaysomeday
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
creativecommon...
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
Zero faith in science LOL, just look at germ theory + vaccines BUT your Food-forest speaks for itself....healthy, happy & abundant w Life.
The veg farm, on the other hand, has constant issues w infestation etc. Last wk I spent 2 days adding Nitrogen Fertilizer to all greenhouse plants.
I notice the 🐝🦋🐦s stay on the perimeter of the fields where the Forest & Blackberry bushes are. Enough said
There are good actors and bad actors everywhere, in every field, every niche. Some more than others. And if there is money to be made, the more bad actors come out to swindle and steal.
Some areas that are heavily with predators are things like cryptocurrency, medicine, farming, meat/veg, etc. But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and label all science as bad.
Cryptocurrency is a giant scammer party, but that doesn't mean there aren't critical applications (that are green for the planet) that are being developed. Ethereum, nano, these are great examples of world changing technology living in an ecosystem of thieves and bandits.
Sure, when tobacco was being marketed as something all the best athletes use, the science that paid for this wasn't unbiased, and thus was flawed. The meat industry is now doing what the tobacco industry did, and pushing propaganda science. But that ALSO doesn't mean that there isn't accurate unbiased science that is Pro-meat, as well as biased "science" that is anti-meat, funded by groups who hope to sell plant based meats. A big indicator of that is what the anti-meat science uses as it's baseline to compare? Do they use industrial agriculture, which everyone knows is terrible, or Silvopasture and regenerative agriculture? Well, what agenda are they pushing? Etc. The world is rife with scammers and liars and bias and agenda. Where it really gets confusing is that this also doesn't mean that plant based meats isn't potentially an incredibly useful technology, even with the inherent bias!!! What an information maze this is, rife with traps and predators, but sometimes those predators are right! Sometimes they are just predators. That's our crazy world that we have to navigate.
Same goes for many topics. I am very pro-vaccine in general, but I'm also not blind to the fact that where there is money to be made, one should question the research, especially when there is a conflict of interest in the funding of a thing, ajd the profit of the same thing.
I'm certainly not anti vaxx, but I respect people who are, simply because of how muddy those waters are. I'm not anti climate science, or hate climate deniers, because of the same reason.
so instead, in those areas, I try to focus on the unifying facts. For climate science, it's that many resources aren't renewable, such as natural materials, coal oil and gas, and biological ones such as life and diversity. So if we can take actions that remedy those things, but they also help with carbon, then we should do it. For example, taking carbon out of the air is a key factor for climate science, but PUTTING carbon into the soils to build a robust food web of life is CRITICAL for the health of our soil biome. So let's do that. We do that with planting more plants and getting more carbon heavy root exudates into the soil. The only consequence of that action is more trees, cleaner air, cleaner water, more animal habitat.
That's my approach to these areas of bias in science. I appreciate the sentiment of not trusting science, but let's not have zero faith in science, let's have a heavy skeptical eye towards bias, because there is a lotbof good science being done, ajd it's critical that it gets done, to fight against the biased science that corporations push in order to support their industry's continuation and growth. It wss tobacco and oil in the mid century, but its evident in many places now.
The last thing is that the lack of science in an area MAY ONLY indicate a lack of financial incentive to run the science. And if there is a financial incentive to NOT run the science (such as selling fertilizer to farmers) then any science that tries to debunk that, is going to have armies of propaganda science to fight against. So the lack of evidence for something doesn't always mean anything. Failure to prove something isn't proof of failure... especially if the journey to do so isn't even taken.
I'm going to pin this comment. I know I went off on a massive tangent here, but the whole discussion is directly centered on the heart of this video... which is to seek information, but also understand that the waters are murky at times, and money muddies all things.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Well said, thank you!
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Well said! I used to be really into science as a kid and still am infinitely curious about how things work. But lately I have been more and more skeptical of mainstream science once I started to follow the money trail. There is good work being done but it is often muddied by massive financial backing by those to stand to gain from a particular outcome. This leads to cherry picking data and spinning of the results by so called "experts".
The great thing about gardening is it's not that hard to do our own backyard science. Now it may not be super clinical and we may be introducing our own biases but at least we can see the results for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.
Stay curious!
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy this is the approach I like to try and take with these things as well. Sometimes digging through the bias is exhausting though lol
What’s wrong with germ theory?
Grad student studying rhizobia (the bacteria in root nodules) here with some clarifications!
Root nodules are not really nitrogen storage organs, instead they just act as the housing unit for the bacteria. Rhizobia while in nodules are basically factories. Their existence is devoted to converting N2 to NH3, and this produces a lot of bioavailable nitrogen… but the plant also needs a lot of nitrogen and nitrogen is a very common limiting nutrient in soils. Nitrogen is needed to produce essentially all biomass because there’s a nitrogen in every amino acid which makes up every protein, which makes up every cell in every plant.
This nitrogen demand, means that there isn’t really any nitrogen storages, it’s all just constantly being used to produce more plant. So even if the nodules did dissociate from the roots, it’s just releasing a little plant tissue and a bunch of rhizobia (not a bad thing, just not like a nitrogen tsunami washing over the surrounding soils).
What I’m trying to say is that all parts of the plant are mostly equal if in terms of nitrogen density, so chopping and dropping leaves would be reasonably similar to chopping the same amount of roots and mulching with that (just looking at nitrogen anyway).
All that being said. N-fixers take tons of N from the air instead of from the soil. So they are introducing new Nitrogen to your system at the end of the day. That nitrogen gets sequestered into the roots, leaves, and dead biomass of your system.
IDK anything about Taproots lol.
TLDR: Leaves/stems have PLENTY of nitrogen, and those leaves were made from nitrogen that was newly added to your system thanks to the ability of N-fixers who use nitrogen from the air instead of the soil.
Great video, love the transparency and thanks for all you do!
It looks like permaculture books focus too much on the nodules themselves. I think the overall strategy in the video remains solid though. N fixers mostly provide for themselves. When we just leave them be, they drop leaves, and a lot of that N came from the air. If we chop them, then drop the chopped material, a lot of that N came from the air. At the same time, if the roots die back (seems still to be contentious if they just shrink, or get disassociated), but none the less, even if the nodules themselves aren't a slow release fertilizer pellet, it's still organic material high in N, a lot of which cake from the air.
Is that your understanding of it? Anything I have wrong there? I want to make sure my mental model is correct, because I never formally studied this stuff in university. I appreciate your comment so much!
Exactly, nodules aren’t slow release N fertilizer granules, but they are still rich in N (as is the rest of the plant).
Another note: rhizobia and N-fixing plants only form that symbiosis when the plant is limited by nitrogen… this means if a n-fixer is happy and healthy in in a N-rich patch of soil, it will not recruit rhizobia to form nodules and fix nitrogen.
This means that N-fixers are much more valuable to a nitrogen poor system like a corn field than a lush established climax forest ecosystem.
Thanks for responding - your community engagement is top notch!
That last part is very interesting, ajd I've noticed it a lot. I've been digging up a lot of my wilder varieties of seabuckthorn, and I'm noting a huge disparity in nitrogen nodules. Sides of hills and more neglected areas have much more nodules on the roots than areas in my main strip where I tend to focus more attention, more chop and drop, more mulch top upside, and more yellow gold applications around fruit trees. It makes sense and echoes what I'm seeing here.
Thanks so much for the comments. I love learning things from you all. Everyone is an expert in something and can teach you something. ❤️
Thanks for sharing.
A core problem with "there's no scientific evidence" as an argument is that any such research is only done if a researcher can get funding and the vast majority of funding is tied to someone making money from the results.
This is 100% true. Failure to provide proof, isn't proof of failure. Especially when there isn't even an attempt to do so, because there is no financial reason to. And even worse, where there IS a financial reason to maintain the status quo.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy this. Ernst Gotsch.
A place to look would be old Soviet records. Don't get me wrong, the Soviet Union was awful for a lot of reasons, but I'm the early days their research really was looking at how to boost food productivity and such for the mass of people. I'm pro Socialism and VERY anti Soviet. But they may have some good stuff.
@@d.w.stratton4078 The information about soviet union comes to us from the same bunch of people who promote vaccines, drugs, monoculture and the like. Its about 90% false, and it would blow peoples minds to discover what actually happened.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Some scientists move past this hurdle and pay for it themselves. I have massive respect for those people. Scientific evidence is worth more than gold.
Oh goodness gracious. You are addressing some of my pet peeves. I’ll start with comfrey, it’s tap root and chop and drop benefits. The tap root is not only a stabilizer, it is a channel for air and water deep into the soil. A plant doesn’t have to delve deeply into the subsurface of the soil in order to successfully access multiple nutrients. The stems and leaves may only be from the top 5-8” but so what? The leaves are still chock full of diverse nutrients.
One of the main benefits of chop and drop of comfrey is the rate of decomposition. It’s extremely fast. The plant is engineered to return all of that nutrition to its own root system precisely because its growth rate is so high during the season. So if I cut back my plants once the stems droop to the ground, chop up some of them around my apple trees as well as the comfrey plants themselves I am helping the comfrey to share its wealth. If deer and raccoons and wild pigs were allowed to roam through my food forest they would spread these materials for me. I’m just acting like a wild animal in mother nature’s scheme.
As for nitrogen fixers each plant benefits from its own storage system while it is alive. Other plants close by don’t have to share the nitrogen that has been delivered by other systems. Once the plant is dead it’s storage load does become available to other organisms. But killing a nitrogen fixing tree to feed another non-nitrogen fixing tree is - well - stupid. Rain carries a higher nitrogen load that a root systems’ storage capacity. By the time other plants can access those storage nodes the rain would have provided for their needs. Annual herbaceous plants are another story. Once the clover dies back in late autumn the winter seasonal plants can take those nutrients to help them deal with severe conditions.
Back to the nitrogen fixing trees. These are pioneer trees. They show up in areas that are transitioning from grassland, scrubland to forest. There isn’t a vast web of deep root systems to take advantage of. Conditions may be arid until the evapotranspiration systems can be re-established so rain may not be a reliable source of nitrogen. In this case the pioneer trees are especially designed to thrive whereas other more valuable trees may not do well, without drawing on the nitrogen stored in the soil/water/salt/plant material. They are usually fast growing and short lived. They develop root highways for future plants, break up hard pan soils and replace carbon quickly while leaf drop build top soil and slows erosion. Around here alders are known as widow makers because their branches don’t hold up well to not-very-strong winds. They are dropping their carbon load regularly. Their photosynthetic produce is different from grasses, weeds, shrub and vine layers so are also tailoring the soil life to support longer lived more valuable forest. And I’m not talking about more valuable in terms of how much a lumber baron can rape the land for. I’m talking about long term healthy sustainable forest tailored by Mother Nature.
I would love to site the original research but the sources are varied. I can tell you little of it comes from the US where I live. Mostly from the UK and Scandinavia is what I remember. I can tell you that the agriscience department at Eugene OR has corroborated some of the research’s validity.
Man, so many comments I want to pin. This is just such a fantastic comment, as always.
If one was a skeptic, but still open minded, not enough to take a youtube comment as evidence (absolutely no offence meant to you or others) where would one find the information that you speak of? eg; " The plant is engineered to return all of that nutrition to its own root system precisely because its growth rate is so high during the season" Is there somewhere I can confirm this in order to help and/or teach others?
Hi there. What a wealth of info. Would be terrific if you were to create 5 minute content videos like this response, as you walk thru your forest. Some info might be applicable to others more or less but the thinking process is what is common to everyone. 🙏🏼
I enjoy and endorse this comment!❤🙂
Did the same research myself a while ago (science nerd med tech here) and came to the same conclusions. Most of my perennials have a food purpose - berries or fruit - but I do have lots of comfrey that I chop and drop to add nutrition to the soil. I plant peas and beans with some of my perennials as well as in my annual beds and chop them off at ground level so the roots will break down over winter as the upper parts break down after I scatter them over the bed and/or put them in my compost bin. My comfrey is chopped and dropped and also added to compost. Do appreciate the deep tap-rooted annual plants for their ability to break through our hard soil - and then break down in the soil over winter then the plants die. To me the most important thing is to incorporate a lot of diversity and put all that stuff back into the ground, one way or the other.
THIS is why I continue to follow you and your channel. Ethical transparency👍🏻
That means a lot :)
When I was in Horticultural College, we were taught different types of digging, one of them being double digging. During this process you dig to a depth of 2 spits down. However, my lecturers always said, never mix topsoil with subsoil, because subsoil is 'nutrient-poor'
... which is interesting, because if deep tap-rooted plants are growing roots way down into the subsoil (and they are, because I've plenty of experience digging down to hoick out persistent weeds), according to my lecturers, they can't be bringing up much nutrition from a layer that's known to be nutrient-poor.
So my guess is - it's going to work if you're lucky enough to have really deep, rich soils. Since many of us don't (my soil being very thin and rocky across much of my garden), deep tap roots are a waste of time for conveying nutrients.
That said, I do grow a few types of chop and drop around the garden because I am very keen to 'build' topsoil -
Comfrey, Oriental Poppies, Ferns (inc Bracken, which makes a lovely dark, airy compost), the highly regenerative Heracleum sphondylium, nettles, lots of different types of vetch, and even the dreaded Rosebay Willow herb has donated a great deal to soil building.
I don't remove grass before planting either. Lots of people criticise me for this, but I garden on a steep slope and if I was to smother the grass and kill it off, the soil will just wash away in the Autumn rains. Grass is a pain to control, but it's the best thing for holding the soil structure together.
You’re extremely knowledgeable! What are your thoughts on using Corsican mint for a ground cover in a small space?
Fantastic comment as always Debbie
Yeah but they atract funghi down there
So my understanding is that taproots are not grabbing "nutrients" from deeper sources but minerals. You're absolutely right about topsoil being more fertile, but the different root depth is supposed to draw up minerals not accessible to shallower roots.
The Holistic Orchard by Michael Phillips is my source but it's not a scientific text so no cited studies from him.
I'm so glad I finally watched this video. I had been wondering about that very thing even through I heard it from nearly everyone. I've not had time to do tons of research, so thank you for that, too.
I plan to have a small "food forest" on my second property. I'm now working on reducing invasives, replacing them with "free growers" that don't need much attention, researching native plants, deciding which ones I and extended family will be more likely to actually use, and planning layout, etc.
Realistically the plantings won't begin for a few years when I can actually move there. The part of it that is not forested is just VA red clay so needs all the help it can get. The past few years I've let the grasses grow & mow them occasionally so I hope that has helped somewhat. Now I will make an effort to plant at least the areas where I plan to garden with annual and biannual plants to let their natural cycles improve the soil as well as support pollinators and wildlife.
There are already some wonderful volunteer raspberries that produce a really nice crop. I've actually managed to maintain them pretty well. It's easy to take a gallon in a 20 minute pick session.
I wish some birds would be nice enough to plant some blueberries for me, too!
Subscribed to the channel. Watched some videos and i have to say this is the first down to earth food forest channel i have seen. Most plant on buckets and call it a forest.
Welcome aboard!
I prefer to use the term biomass accumulation. Different plants contain different mineral ratio. I plant lemongrass, Vetiver and Mexican marigold in sandy, unfertile soil and they do great. I chop and use it as mulch while adding biomass or add it to my compost pile.
I think the deep tap root also has another role. Once the plant ends its life cycle, the tap root dies off, leaving a "tunnel" in the ground, that will help with water infiltration, aeration of your soil, and also roots of other plants and fungi might use it to travel down. This way by having tap roots growing and dying in your soil, you might be accelerating the ability to create a thicker top soil and sub soil layer.
In our fields we have found roots of clover going over 1.5 meters deep, that only happens if the soil is loose enough and alive enough, such that it can penatrate. When starting with very young soil, taproots might play an important role in achieving that. Also look at the work of Gabe Brown, who uses plants with tap roots to "drill" through compaction layers, such that other plants might utilize these pathways when the taproots die back, creating a thicker topsoil layer over time.
We have a lot to think about and to learn, but luckily if we do good thinks for wrong reasons, it still works, nature is strong :-)
for sure.
Very refreshing, great video! I love that you are honest, inquisitive, and straightforward.
So glad I found your channel.
My hubby and I are just getting started in permaculture. Very helpful!
Thank you kindly 🙏 ☺️
This just came up in my feed. Since you published this, Helen Atthowe published The Ecological Farm, a science-based book on ecological farming. It's right up your alley. One of the big points she makes is how much of the nitrogen in leaves chopped and dropped on the soil surface actually volatilizes as a gas. If applied to the surface, some nitrogen does end up mineralized in the so but to maximize the effectiveness of chop and drop for nitrogen retention, it needs to be somewhat mixed into the top layer of the soil. Also, if you hit google scholar, there is an interesting 2021 SARE doc on dynamic accumulators that has more information than I've seen.
Thanks for those threads to pull on!!
So nice to hear someone step back from the regurgitating tendency. It's definitely a difficult tendency to break. Like most my initial knee jerk reaction was what you are going to say nitrogen fixers don't improve soils, but I stuck with it and I have to agree on both accounts. I can't say I have ever seen evidence that they feed nitrogen back into the soil except in situation where they are culled completely. I have seen some limited transfer via mycorrhiza. Also I completely agree most people completely misunderstand what the purpose of a tap root is. This is extremely common in tree growing communities, people often believe that the tree dies if the taproot is severed, but that is completely false. It's done all the time in the nursery industry on purpose.
Definitely gained a subscriber as a result of your honesty. Keep up the good work.
Exactly. N fixers have a huge part to play in a system. Even if all they do is grow leaves using N from the air instead of the soil, that N is returned in the fall during leaf drop. It may not be "fixing" nitrogen in the traditional sense of rhizobium bacteria, but they are still improving nitrogen (and carbon!!) in the soils by dropping leaves which were mostly created from thin air and some rain.
Fantastic video. So many good ones lately (and I always love the geek-out science moments!). My "nitrogen fixers", you are right, may work for different reasons. Shade is a big thing here in dry PNW summers and my main "nitrogen fixers", Comfrey, Goumi and Sea Buckthorn, all grow fast and provide good shade. The Sea Buckthorn and Goumis I would also grow just for the fruits. The Comfrey (yes I stupidly grew 'True Comfrey' from seed so yank off the flowers early and often) is so hearty via that taproot that I can constantly yank off those leaves to cover soil so have to water less in our dry summers. At least for the Comfrey, a big X factor for me is laziness. It's just so easy to drop those Comfrey leaves at the base of the plant and tree and not have to haul anything (I usually do it while watering). So, even if they don't "fix" nitrogen as I think you are probably right, they still tend to work for me. ...and totally agree that more plants of any kind help the soil. I have seen that working for sure!!! ....and also part of the lazy X-Factor....I always pee on plants in the yard rather than go to the house and waste water (in Spring and Summer anyway when the leafed out trees/shrubs keep the neighbors from getting an unwanted show.). Sometimes you have to be your own nitrogen fixer!😜🤷♂️
Yeah, and reading through all the comments (such as yours and many others) there are just SO SO Many reasons to do these things still, even if some aspects of them are in "myth" territory. Deep rooted plants provide low resistance water and air pathways down to the ground. SO they are still something we should include in guilds. Chopping and dropping things, even if it doesn't disassociate the root tissue, still shrinks them, doing the exact same thing, low resistance pathways get created. So many factors at play. The best thing we can do is just replicate nature as often and accurate as possible.
I pee on root zone of my plants as well.
Building soil is a very good cause! Great job! Keep sharing your experiences… cheers from Argentina
You too! ❤️
I love the openness and honesty here! And also the acknowledgment that just because there's no science behind something, doesn't mean that it's not helpful, we just don't know the mechanism involved. Yet. There is very little else that you could say or do that would more firmly confirm for me that I made the right decision in subscribing to your channel!
Thanks!
I think a big part of N fixers is the fact that there bringing in organic matter from the air and are “pioneer” plants meaning they can settle in very poor conditions, and then slowly making it suitable for other plants until one day it’s an Amazon forest!
they're* and nitrogen gas is inorganic not organic.
Old school farmers around here still do a season of red clover, which I seeded heavily in my backyard; this year - this week in fact - I decided to scatter lupins around, too.
Mythbusting would be awesome as a regular segment! You could voiceover the view of the pond.
Just on the subject of taproots, those do bring water to the surface, allowing for a huge amount of carbon fixation every season. I grow bullthistle just for the biochar (and because it brings in the sweet little goldfinches haha).
Thanks for addressing a major peeve! It always disappoints me when someone I consider an authority spouts some clichéd nonsense without a second of critical attention. But I do hear marigolds flowers will give your chicken eggs a gorgeous colour!
You and @GardeningInCanada would have SO much to talk about!
In my experience, the benefits of comfrey are overstated. I'm glad I didn't plant more than I did. I'd rather give the space to a diversity of appropriately-sited native wildflowers/shrubs. In addition, the dictate to plant a nitrogen-fixer with every fruit tree seems tenuous at best, so I've generally ignored it (even on initially infertile soil). Observe, study, then ask yourself what would be growing on your site if humans had not altered it; plant your "useful" plants into a matrix of historically local plants (many of which are also actually "useful" to humans, and all of which are ecologically useful). It will thrive.
I've been planting rhubarb instead of comfrey because it's similar in function and... rhubarb pie tastes better.
@@OakSummitNursery Seriously, strawberry-rhubarb pie is the best pie ever, and I pride myself on baking a fine one! But how much rhubarb is enough in the landscape? A handful of vigorous plants provide more than we can possibly eat. After we eat/preserve our fill, I let them flower for the insects, but as is the case with comfrey, I won't be deliberately multiplying my rhubarb. Instead, I'm searching out and adding in a diversity of native plants for wildlife/insects, e.g. wild senna, NJ tea, dotted St. John's wort, shrubby St. John's wort, steeplebush, buttonbush, figworts, etc.
My bunnies eat comfrey and they leave great fertilizer for me so I value it.
Your channel is fantastic. I love that you have done so much research on these claims and then share it with us. Thank you for being so honest. 🇨🇦🐝
Thanks Lyn 😊
My own thoughts are in a similar space to yours. But I have been interested to read some more recent science on nitrogen fixing bacteria residing in non-photosynthising cells in leaves and stems of plants. Basically the group of "nitrogen fixing" plants may be far broader than traditional permaculture currently realises and explains why some crops outside of those traditionally considered nitrogen fixing (the study looks at hemp) do well in poor soil. Look at a recent study at Rutgers University, "Historical Evidence for Nitrogen- Transfer Endosymbiosis in Non-Photosynthetic Cells of Leaves and Inflorescence Bracts of Angiosperms". Catchy Title. I think the implications may really question a lot of what we have considered the basics of guilds. Although bio-accumulation of matter on the surface of soils is great for so many other reasons that maybe it doesnt matter.
ooooh this was extremely interesting, thanks fot posting it. I'm going to have to reread that tomorrow to make sure I understood it properly.
Much respect for researching and correcting previous info you shared that you now realize lacks scientific evidence. Very interesting post. Thank you.
I'd be such the annoying student in a PDC because I already know all the techniques, so I'd have my scientific skeptical brain going strong, not having to absorb the techniques. Never yet have I heard anyone explain the dynamic part of dynamic accumulators. Maybe you have? Elaine Ingham does tell a story of measuring the rate at which nutrients move from the roots to the tree tops, by having some researchers hike down into a cave and injecting into the tree roots, while other researchers stayed at the top looking for the markers to appear in the sap. I forget the tree and the timing, but it was extraordinarily fast.
I'd also point out that there is always leakage in nature. No nitrogen nodule is going to be able to contain 100% of the nitrogen it fixes. So some of it is clearly going to be found in surrounding soils and plant tissues. In a forest situation the roots of trees are all intermingled. I figure there's a lot of give and take happening. People have this mindset of tree root structures as this perfect dendritic sphere, but then when you look at the drawings that researchers have done of tree roots, they are much more irregular.
All great points. No barrier is 100%.
Also if we want deep roots, we can look no further than native prairie grasses!! They have some insane roots.
don't forget the mycelium networks!
@@ediblelandscaping1504 artificial fertilizers? But the statement "There is zero soil biome" is a bit strange. there is an aerobic environment from the water constantly being stirred. this facilitate microbes, so there should be something.
it's similar to how till agriculture fertilizer systems work, or pure chemical based hydroponics. It's all capillary action that drives the water and nutrients into the plant. This can happen with no microbiology, but chelation cannot happen, so the fertilizer must be chelated, ie. in a plant available form.
Very interesting way to look at permaculture - definitely worth using scientific knowledge to better understand "why"?
Nitrogen fixers do work, but they of course don't shed their nodules... The benefit is that they can grow fast without outside input of fertilizers and they produce high protein biomass (for legumes at least), biomass rich in protein decomposes into nitrogen rich compounds (nitrates, nitrites, ammonia) which in turn benefits other plants around...
I think it‘s great that you look for scientific backing of the things you spread and in doing so encourage us to do the same. Based on my research, I do think that tap roots on certain plants make nutrients available to other plants that plants near the surface might not access. Mineral ions like calcium are dissolved in the water that plants take up over their roots. Calcium has been shown to pass through root tips, including tap roots. Although there are more nutrients in the top soil than in lower layers, if the water flowing in the lower layers manage to dissolve mineral nutrients from rocks they pass over, then these nutrients can be picked up by a tap root as it takes in water. These nutrients are then stored in the root until the plant needs them. The nutrients are not available to other plants until the plant with the tap root dies and the nutrients are made available to the microbiology in the soil at the surface (provided the nutrients have been used to build plant matter above or near the surface. Nutrients that are available in this way need to be ones that can actually be found in the lower layers, like calcium ions.
dandelions are a great case study for this exact phenomenon. I wish more research was done on them and their ability to capture calcium and return it, and exactly how deep they do this from.
This is why I like your channel - EVIDENCE! While I love many of the ideals of permaculture, some of the claims are aspirational
I think you are correct on sacrificial plants. There is a lot of sound science with nitrogen fixing for cover crops (beans, peas, buckwheat, etc.) for fixing fields. Many of our farmers here in Kansas grow soy bean as a cover crop for this reason. The proof being in that the soils are not needing fertilizers in the coming years. Also, one big challenge commercial farms have currently is the lack of crop rotation and cover cropping. Where regenerative techniques are in place and planting multiple species they are increasing the interaction of nutrient exchange.
The key difference is there is a lot of good research on optimal time to till the beans/alfalfa under in order to maximize Nitrogen addition. Without the till, the beans are really just growing without taking N, which in itself is pretty good. Most of the N replenishment then comes from rains.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy In the regenerative fields they are not tilling the fields and increasing the yields without fertilizer. The fields they are tilling are having troubles. There are a lot of grant programs encouraging regenerative techniques and avoiding no till. I'll look for the studies and post.
Keith, Great video and there's probably some sort of symbiotic benefit among various plants living together. Lots of complexity in mother nature and we probably will never completely understand it all.
so so true.
Thank you so much for this video. I've wondered about the scientific nature of the memes around nitrogen fixers in the garden for a long time. I didn't track my source on this but I read once that you can tell if the plant is fixing nitrogen from the air if the roots have nodules. Last year I pulled up my pea plants and didn't see any nodules which, as I read, indicates that the symbiotic bacteria are not present in the soil. So, I bought an inoculant and will test for myself with pea seeds I have left over from last year's planting... I can't wait to see the outcome this year.
I’ve definitely heard the about shedding nitrogen from the roots, whether that’s beneficial who knows. There is the release of gibberellic acid when pruning which is said to help neighbouring trees grow. As for chop and drop depending on how fast the material decompose I’d assume that a lot of the nitrogen could just off-gas, the same way there’s a difference between nitrogen rich green grass and carbon rich dried grass.
Nice a little section about media use knowledge.
I always wondered about the root shedding, why plants should do that.
Regrowing needs a lot of nutrients the plant probably has to get from the soil food web. So it converts the nitrogen into exudates, "feeds" it to mycelium and bacteria, which feeds higher soil food wen beings
I highly appreciate you sharing the information, experience and knowledge! Big thumb up to you for doing your own research and study then speaking out your mind frankly. As humanity stepping into the new Aquarius age, this is exactly the spirit that people need ～ collaborate and help each others, yet speak out your own idea/mind 👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏❤️🌹
Suzanne Simard has shown that the transfer of carbon between trees is mediated via the mycorrhizal systems. She shows intimate communication between plants via this same system. Likewise, we know that the breakdown of organic material in the soil occurs as the result of soil bacteria and fungi and that these nutrients are passed along to plants. Although we may not know exactly how nitrogen, carbon and other nutrients are passed between plants in a guild, we can only establish the optimal balance of plants in guild. Once it can be clearly established that certain plant combinations are beneficial, the next phase would then be to determine why and then to determine the how. The myths are in the how say a nitrogen fixer is beneficial to a guild. However, the scientific role of the horticulturist is to clearly show that a nitrogen fixer is beneficial or not.
It's always good to have that big picture in mind for sure. I always want to know "why" but sometimes we're decades or centuries from being able to figure out the answer. Sometimes we may not even be capable of understanding something as different to us as plants. I talk about this a lot in my "plant intelligence" video. We know just so little about plants.
So often the best we can do is an empirical approach. Try something, see how it works. Try to control all the variables and only change 1, then see how that works. Rince and repeat for the million or so variables and see if we can learn anything at all. But when it comes down to it, we just do our best and try to mimic nature as closely as possible. That's the way to get as close to the mark as we can.
Dr Christine Jones is well respected in this field. There is a lot of science about it.
Thanks 😊
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy please let me know how you go. There are plenty of others doing regenerative agriculture which includes MS cover cropping. I'd like to see another video about it when you get a handle on the science. The entire NPK system we currently use is so stupid. It's killing the earth and doesn't work on any level. Regenerative agriculture will probably go against everything you've ever learned. Welcome to the new old ways. 💖
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy ruclips.net/video/EX6eoxxoWKI/видео.html
This might help, good luck!
oh, check out my soil science video. I'm definitely many years into regenerative agriculture side of things. Thanks for watching 😀
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy so you are many years into regenerative ag but still can't find science to back up multi species cover crops? Dr Christine Jones explained it pretty well I thought. You said you didn't understand how it works. Why not just ask her. Never mind. I apologise for wasting your time.
Interesting to hear your thoughts on this, it is a very important topic. I find it almost impossible to whether most garden advice is based on actual facts/research or merely hearsay, especially as a lot of advice is conflicting regarding planting times, pruning, pollination etc.
What's cool to me is that we don't really know how or why it works and yet we can still help have a positive impact. I think that natural systems are so complex that we will probably never fully understand it all and they are so regenerative that as long as we aren't taking too much, nature is always working harder than we ever could to restore itself
A brilliant point.
Anything in this area needs to be approached this way. The natural world is so complex and we know so little about it, that the absence of proof isn't proof it itself.
So get out there and try it, see what works, and operate in the empirical space of trial and error. We may always know EXACTLY why something works, but we can control as many factors as possible and isolate good practices, and do those. And the best way to start is to look at nature and replicate what nature does.
Most of the Nitrogen compounds ends up in leaves and stems , and a lot of leaf mass is shed during the vegetation period, that gets nutrients back into the soil as it slowly decomposes, legume leaves usually have high nitrogen content thanks to all that nitrogen provided by nodules
Thankyou, great video.
There's a section in Dave Jacke's 'Edible Forest Gardens' book that talks up the importance of nitrogen fixers for a while and then ends by saying something like "we're not sure how long it takes for nitrogen fixers to actually translate their nitrogen stores into benefits for surrounding plants, could be 10 years, maybe longer. Don't ditch the compost early on." When I read that I remember thinking 'huh, that's a disappointing ending to that nice sounding principle' Honestly though, it just makes the design easier - grow a diversity of plants, let them do their thing, it doesn't have to be complicated. Thanks for the video, good to question everything, especially the things that make us feel warm and fuzzy
Great conclusion 👌
Great video, Thanks.
The idea that plants share nutrients has been varified scientifically. You can look up the work of Susan Simard on youtube and elsewhere for that. I do very much agree with the gist of what you are saying, and there is always a good reason to be careful with what we say or write as it may be passed down information that has not been varified scientifically. The part about the tap root not being a feeding root is possible but also not varified from my understanding, but your statement that it is all about stability might also not be accurate. Many plants with a deep taproot are doing so because they search for water at greater depths, like many desert trees. It would be interesting to know under what circumstances someone was able to find a comfrey root at 100 foot depth, and what was happening in that area in terms of water issues. I don't write this to naysay what you were on about in this video, because your way of reasoning is very valid and well thought out. Great content as always.
I understand it a little differently. N-fixer as example: you chop off thin branches full of leaves (high N material) and mulch a different plant with it, then the nodules in the root zone give a sort of 'food storage/grow juice' bump to the coppiced N-fixer, compensating it back to balance and re-accumulating N for itself for next time. Also the mulching inherently just adds organic matter to support microbial life which is doing a lot of things to make N and other stuff more readily available and with higher storage capacity for excesses from things like animal pee for example.
This is the real and best way to think about it.
Even if it works, we have other proven ways of incorporating nitrogen into these systems. Why risk it on a dubious proposition? The key take away from this video is organic mulch works. It may or may not be created equal, but it works.
Isn't the taproot also a great fallback in a drought? I don't think a comfrey plant, no matter if it's 3-5 feet tall, needs a 50-foot taproot for stability! I expect that its longevity may be assured by access to water deep in the ground.
There's a few things I would like to clarify:
- The benefit of the nitrogen fixers could also be this giant pump of carbohydrates into the soil food web. If the fungal network is supported by these fast carbon pathways, there is more capacity to in turn support the productive species.
- There might not be much evidence for where the nutrients are coming from in comfrey and I agree it might just be the feeder roots. But I have certainly seen scientific evidence for the soil around comfrey plants to be higher in plant available nutrients than surrounding areas without comfrey.
100%. This video isn't to debunk nitrogen fixers in general. They still produce root exudates and leaves which drop, both of which taking the nitrogen they use from the air. They absolutely take that nitrogen and put it into the soil. The mechanism for it however is what I take contention with. There is very little to no evidence that chopping them causes dislocation of root nodules, despite many many people claiming that's what happens.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy And yet Geoff Lawton has said it in the past and as far as I know, never retracted it. Though he doesn't seem to say that it any more.
There is research done on acacias in Australia. They do increase soil fertility. Unless the nitrogen fixer is a nitrogen hungry plant, more likely than not nitrogen will accumulate. Although I do not have proof, I believe for acacias if you stunt their growth above, their roots will still expand and it will produce a net amount of nitrogen in the soil rather than neutral amount.
Also look for hard science where conventional agriculture is analyzing the effects of crop rotation.
I still think number 1 priority is oxygen. My soil was dead clay now few years into this, previous person took all his topsoil ha. If you have no life in packed hard ground you have concrete alternating and mud, you need to add oxygen to that any way you can and roots are good for that. Im still working that hurdle, trees in drainaged planters until i get wide scale porosity added into the clay which is taking time. Today i learned there are two separate mycorrhiza universes that dont really get along together. Its a journey!
With respect to tap roots, I remember a geology prof explaining the fluctuations of calcium in the soil with the variations in the local water table. Tap roots plants like dandelions compared to grass with a fibrous root system would be at an advantage in times of drought for the collection of such an ion (amongst others). Anecdotal observation of my lawn mower clippings with dandelions amongst them suggest plants whom get this mulch look happier.
THIS VALIDATES MY SCEPTICISM
In my review of Clover nitrogen fixation from universities and ag extension offices, there are a few ways that fixation happen. But the one we are discussing here is disassociation which is a poor choice of words probably. There is not pipeline directly feeding nitrogen from clover fixation directly to associated plants. Perennial clovers when mowed do have some root death when mowed and do supply the associated plants with nitrogen as those roots decay. Soils maintained in a cover of such clovers that are mowed act as a time release nitrogen source and when done with the long term in mind are an excellent way to increase usable nitrogen in soils. Clop and drop of clover .... mowing and leaving the chopped clover accomplishes this slow release AND send the high nitrogen contend from the foliage back into the soil. I'll respond to Comfrey and it's tap root later but for now some food for thought. Why would a short plant like Comfrey need such a stabilizing taproot.....It does not make biological sense unless it is a prehistoric throw back.... but more on that as I delve deeper. So in my educated opinion chop and drop of clover is not a myth.
I am so glad you addressed this and shed some light coming from a scientific perspective. Thank you! Since you mentioned a total sacrifice of nitrogen fixing plants would be most beneficial, I'm wondering if annual native nitrogen fixers are perfect for this job. For example, partridge pea is a nitrogen fixer that's an annual and grows from seed again each year. It also self sows very easily so should be pretty hands off. Bonus that it's native, at least in my area. Keith, I'm curious to hear your opinion about whether this would work as a yearly auto-sacrificial nitrogen-fixing plant. One thing I'm wondering is if it's not ideal for fruit trees to get the flush of nitrogen at the end of the season when the partridge pea would die off since the trees are about to go dormant...
I think its very possible. The only thing that may need to be answered first, is WHEN do the nitrogen nodules swell.
If they swell in anticipation of flowering and fruiting, and the plant then uses that nitrogen to grow fruit (most N is used for leaves though), or if the plant uses that N towards its end of life, to ensure fertility for the seeds it drops, then it may change things.
In short, I don't know, and there is no evidence that supports it scientifically. However, that also doesn't mean it's not potentially true, because if there is no money in the science, then it won't be done. But that doesn't mean it may not be factual.
Long answer for.... I don't know. But it sounds feasible and makes logical sense.
Thanks! Love this info. I have cowpeas planted all around my baby fruit trees. I guess that will be the sacrificial method
Just discovered the channel and love your vibe/mission, so thanks for all that you do! I think it's really admirable for you to admit we might be wrong about these common claims and to get the discussion going. I'm curious though, when you say that there isn't much (if any) scientific evidence to support these claims, is it that there aren't any studies that have been conducted to test these hypotheses? Or is it that studies have been conducted and seem to suggest that these claims are untrue?
Your point about the taproot vs feeding roots makes a lot of sense for why the nutrient accumulator claims could be false, since there doesn't seem to be a causal mechanism. But I'm wondering if there might be a mechanism by which the bacteria harnessing the atmospheric nitrogen for these plants could benefit other root systems inhabiting nearby soil, without the need for the host plant's rhizomes to die off. I'm 100% out of my depth on this topic lol, but just wondering if there is still something to the anecdotal evidence and we just lack the understanding to explain or identify the causal mechanism.
Just genuinely curious. Keep up the great work!
For the first thing, no I don't think there are studies to demonstrate it. But also I think there are some misunderstandings that are being repeated and parroted about 2 main things: that roots sever when a plant dies back (they don't, they mostly stay intact and just shrink) and second, that the nitrogen nodules are nitrogen fertilizer pellets. They arent, they are just homes for the root bacteria.
Infact, the nitrogen nodules themselves are more akin to a factory, than a warehouse, if that helps explain it a bit.
The main benefit of a nitrogen fixer is that it is self sufficient, and grows organic material without drawing down soil nitrogen reserves. It then makes plant matter (stems, branches, and especially leaves), and in the fall the leaves fall. A lot of this nitrogen was taken from the air, and is therefore a soil input.
Then when the plant completely dies, the entire plant mass (above ground and also the root mass) will be consumed by soil life and turned into soil, and a lot of THAT nitrogen was also "free input".
So overall, the process is much slower than permaculture books may have you believe. It's still a valuable member of a guild, it's just not this immediate fertility battery that it is sometimes sold as. It is a long term fertility play.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Wow, thank you so much for taking the time to write out that amazingly thoughtful response! I really appreciate it and that makes a lot of sense. Stay awesome my friend!
Could it be that if you have a robust mycorrhizal network the fungi seeks out and redistributes the nitrogen to nearby plants?
Speaking pf Dr. Ingham, what about nutrient movement through fungal networks that tend to be more present in permaculture systems. The soil building allows for more bacteria and then fungal networks that might take those nodules that are abundant?? Just a thought.
You are correct about the nitrogen fixing, the plant has to be sacrificed to put the nitrogen back in the ground, check out Geoff Lawton - Greening the Desert. He has practised for decades and done this all over the world and learnt off one of the first people to actually write books on it back in the day Bill Mollison.
The tap root can maybe help break up the soil for worms (i know I have dense red clay and even white clay 8ft down). Or bring water to the surface for evaporation? Idk if these are true but maybe other ideas. I personality know I find a LOT more worms around root structures than out in the open. That could just be an evolutionary strategy to hide from birds tho.
Cheers for the video. I had an unrelated question. What is your favorite seed bank? I'm trying to find a good seed bank where I could buy both hybrids and heirlooms. Cheers.
I really enjoy west coast seeds. I will still buy locally (Ontario Seed Company), but I use west coast seeds more. I really enjoy their company motto and ethics.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Thank you very much I appreciate it !
Thank you again. It is an interesting point of view. I kind of see the bioaccumulation thing with my lovage. It is a deep root plant too, so I thought it would be self-sufficient in nutrient and everything since it can go search for minerals deep in the soil. Well, even if I let it do all natural cycle, no chop, just die back, it is getting yellower every year. There's not much competition around it but it does not seem happy in my poor soil. So yeah, maybe that deep root is not enough. I'll have to figure out what I can do to make it happier (everything around is happy and everything is wood mulched)
I’m very bad with noting sources. But there has been extensive research from reputable sources on nutrient exchanges through soil fluids and mycellium links. It used N and C isotopes to trace nitrogen and sugar exchanges. Did the same with P and K mimicking (or litteraly recreating) an animal dying on a forest floor.
In the case of chop and drop, a whole lot of N will vaporize before it is degraded into the soil. The roots on most plant species do die back. The mulch effect of the drop in itself helps boost microorganism activity.
Animal droppings, including slug or insect droppings, eating that mulch is important too.
Bibliography of the Ver de Terre production company in France, or MSV (Maraichage sur Sol Vivant) might get you onto good research. Being canadian i hope you have some rudimentary French to navigate their websites.
The roots die back. Plants regrowing will use mostly sugars in the roots, leaving cellulose and other minerals behind.
Also, you don't need to sacrifice your plant. In most nitrogen fixers leaves have more than 80% of the N of the plant. If you shred/chip the ramial parts and create a big mulch then much of this nitrogen will be incorporated to the soil
This is the true best way for sure.
Given this analysis, do you think it is better to plant a nitrogen fixer annual to serve the original, claimed function of a "deep tap rooted nutrient accumulator" and nitrogen fixer perennial?
I think of you constantly cut them, annuals would give more biomass, free N and C. However, if you are going low maintenance and not planning on coming back often, then even just the leaf drop from N fixers is still a ton of free N and C for your soils.
Comfrey has been extensively studied by the great gardener and researcher Lawrence D. HILLS in his inspiring work called Comfrey, Past, Present and Future.
Sé de casos de árboles que mejoran el suelo, incluso en desiertos, pero se trata de climas cálidos. Se trata de especies como Prosopis, Gliciridia, Neem, Inga, por las hojas que aportan Nitrógeno.
Why not do the science on your own ? Test your soil for N before and after chop and drop, 1 month, 3 months after. Test the leaf litter of different types of trees (N fixers and not N fixers). I believe it isnt one size fits all and N fixers all send back the N to the soil in different ways depending on plant types. You just need to discover what builds fertility on your site.
Mostly time. Full time job, 3 kids, wife, youtube channel, I have no time
Confused! I have gardened very successfully for over 40 years and I listened to this and think what hell? Good on u and anyone else who gets this, I don't, I will just grow my food and apparently Mother Nature just takes care of me. 😏
Thank you. Great.
Perhaps another method to release said nitrogen would be to use a spade and push in around the nitrogen fixer in a circle. Essentially cutting off a portion of the feeder roots. This is often done in preparation to dig up a tree. So you could say cut 1/3rd of the top of the tree of as chop and drop, then sever the feeder roots say 2 ft from the trunk. Obviously there would be some potential for damaging the roots of your fruit trees but I don't thinkbit would be significant and the benefits would potentially outweigh the disadvantages?
Keith, have you seen this video on marigolds? And, what are your thoughts?
Did you mean to link to it? I think you forgot?
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Apparently!!!
ruclips.net/video/il8h-CiKUos/видео.html
Hey I was curious about what you think about what I have been doing when pulling weeds out of my vegetable garden.
I pull anything that doesnt taste good to me, then I check the roots and if they have the nitrogen nodules (like clovers) I rip the top of the plant off of the roots and stuff the roots back into the hole with a finger.
Will this return the nitrogen to the soil?
sometimes I pull a big clump of something, notice the nodules and feel like that is probably the most immediate way to benefit my other plants
Yeah that's fine. The best way if possible is to cut the plant at ground level and leave the roots in the ground, so that you don't even disturb the soil by pulling them out and then jamming them back in. But what you are doing is pretty close to that.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy sweet thanks for reply. I find cutting clovers to be too tedious a job so I'm glad this works alright. but I would rather cut scotsbrooms than pull em and stuff em so I will use that technique on them.
I really like you videos I hope you are making some money making them. they are great
haha definitely not making great money doing them, but I'm doing it more to get the message across. Who knows, maybe in another 10 years the channel will be a good source of retirement side income.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Hey stay creative when it comes to finding avenues for making money. You have already "sold" a bunch of videos to me for my time (even though I know youtube and the advertisers are the ones profiting off of it). If you can get people to spend time on you than you can probably get people to spend money on you as well. Anyway good luck acquiring currency, you deserve it.
Do you have a website?
Indeed, my website is in the video description, under the shopping via Amazon link. I used to do consultations but just don't have time for it anymore. I do have merchandise and t-shirts, mugs, etc.
Grasses weren't around billions of years ago. They show up at the end of the Cretaceous , roughly 70million years ago.
Sure, the nitrogen fixer root die back hypothesis is dubious but what about leaves? Their leaves might be full of nitrogen and as the N-fixers are mostly deciduous at the end of the year they share this nitrogen with its neighbors through their leaves (possibly even more if you prune them while still green and use it as mulch).
After all many nitrogen loving species like nettles or puffball mushroom grow under N-fixers so there likely is some natural mechanism.
The leaves are where the main benefit comes from. The plant takes almost all the N for itself. It makes leaves. Then drops them. This is truly the main cycle.
All trees do this of course, but N fixers get a lot of the N from the air, then drop it to the soil through leaves.
As soon as the crop of nitrogen fixers produce crop you loose nitrogen, however if you do not allow the plant to produce crop and keep cut and keep them short then that nitrogen compounds are shed into the soil which is stolen by the neighboring plant.
But if there is a legume tree then you keep the tree as a bush for heavy chop and drop. Science is YOUR experience. I have stopped accepting he said and she said. Someone who has actually worked and changed the soil. I am talking about Geoff lawton - greening the desert. I do not know about temperate climate I am more towards tropical and desert climate where I live. I personally have been able to change the saline sand into sandy loam with giant thick earth worms in the middle of desert in Dubai, UAE.
So could a deep taproot have the opposite effect, it would seem that there is a lot of energy going into the taproot, deep into the earth where it is not useful to neighboring plants? How could that get recycled?
It's always good to bust open the subsoil with roots, for deeper O2 infiltration. Old forest soils have taprooted plants going down a hundred feet.
Good points, but I wonder why a comfrey plant needs such a large tap root?
I have a small garden. I have comfrey next to my cherry tree, pear tree and a grape vine. I get lots of fruits from those trees. However I have nothing planted under my peach tree and I get only bugs attacking my peach tree. It also has that curly leaf disease. It put out a beautiful show of flowers then loaded with peaches then it gets that leaf curly then it all fall off. So I plan to plant comfrey next to to see how it does. But then I came across your video.
Plant the comfrey. It will help the fruit tree. Even if we don't know how. Plant some umbeliefers, too. they will help attract predator bugs.
Definitely agree with Myron.
Umbeliefers are plants that make little umbrella shapes with their flowers, like yarrow, dill, lovage and fennel.
@@myronplatte8354 thanks.
Great exploration and lots of interesting reading in the comments. Kudos for pinning the comment and responding thoughtfully and broadly. My thinking about stuff is very broad, usually more so than most that are loud enough to be heard above the din. My conceptions and comprehensions change with experience and observation. I also think people like Elaine Ingham are caught up in selling and marketing. If you’re signed up on her email list the amount of marketing material is off-putting. I know soil experts who are big earthworm proponents who have not found receptive audience with EI because worms are free and do the work for you. I also make anaerobic tea out of compost/weed/you name it (urine, alfalfa, chicken poop, etc, a no-no to the bubbler and microscope set) and the plants love itI and I’m alive and well. Try everything and see how it acts and reacts in your environment. I struggle with an invasive species earthworm. Very invasive and awful awful according to the scientists but actually also building soil and fertility when populations are able to be controlled and if the garden is focused on plants that benefit from bacteria-dominant soil. Those scientists are doing a job and their funding depends on a set of factors. I’m gardening and any observations I have are independent of that entire matrix. Yet they get to lord their knowledge and opinions over mine casting me into some area of less awareness than them, which I do not appreciate. Somehow the field of institutional science has risen to a priestly class and the fall is imminent for better and worse.
I tend to view chop and drop for the nutrients potentially released from the leaves - calcium from maple and raspberry, tannins from oak, raspberry, grape, redbud, nitrogen from all of them, etc. What gets chopped and dropped tends to be the more numerous of whatever is growing and I’m grateful for their sacrifice. I put more focus on growing native plants and supporting wildlife and supporting that ecosystem as the pressures mount.
Great comment!! Thanks :)
If I had $50 to buy starting plants and I only had two options to purchase, one a single $50 N fixture, the other, 5 $10 different rampant/vigorous plants without repetition of species, I would absolutely purchase the later. Every time.
I chose diversity over any single attribute. Cuz the forest shows me this. However, that then returns us to the benefit of nitrogen fixers, correct? Many of them are hardy pioneers. So context is key as well. But still, more than 1. 1 $20 pea shrub, and 1 $30 black locust is a better purchase than 1 $50 Seaberry: correct?
I would think so yes
What about the fungi? Does it not connect trees and share nutrients?
It does, but in the soil. So it's a net zero. Nitrogen fixers take N from outside the soil and put it into the soil.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy how is that net zero ? Fixers take it from the air like you were saying into nodules and the fungi shares the nodules from the fixer to other trees connected to the fungi
I always understood the point of nitrogen fixers to be to produce green manure (green plant material which can be chopped and dropped or tilled in) for soil building and to enhance nutrient cycling in situations where nitrogen is limiting. Also, I always understood that when you chop and drop any plant, some of the nitrogen in the biomass is going to get incorporated into the soil as the foliage decomposes, as there is a considerable amount of nitrogen in the foliage (on the order of a few percent by dry weight is typical for many green manures from what I've seen). The organisms that consume this foliage are going to feed off of the nitrogen rich compounds in it, no? Thus, the nitrogen gets incorporated into the soil food web as well as the carbon, thereby resulting in soil building and an increase in N cycling through the plant-soil system.
Indeed, there's a lot of scientific literature on the benefits of perennial legumes as green manures for improving soil fertility. I've seen tons of papers describing how the foliage of legume trees like gliricidia and leucaena can increase crop yields and replace synthetic nitrogen fertilizers when employed in this manner. Like many of the practices that have been incorporated into permaculture, green manuring is a very ancient technique with roots in indigenous agriculture systems.
I think the caveat here is that there are a lot of variables at play which influence nitrogen sequestration efficiency from green manure. I feel where the research is lacking is in identifying these variables and quantifying their effects.
This is exactly right
The native Americans planted what they referred to as the Three Sisters was usally corn/maize, gourd/squash, and legumes/beans/peas... they found that they complement each other
Food for thought. Now tackle the assertion that honey locust trees fix nitrogen, please.
Yeah, my understanding is that they don't fix nitrogen, unlike almost all plants from the same family.
Thanks for the response. I suppose that particular myth has its roots in the similarity of the leaves to some leguminous plants.
thanks
Also the thing is: it works. I can run a totally un-scientific comparison on two gardens. Mine and my direct neighbor. One of us is chopping and dropping, the other one is a tilling and weeding "bare earther". Which one is growing more stuff with healthier plants and has way more animals in and on it? You could tell which is which from a satelite image if you had a current one... I wouldn't say "I don't care how it works...", because I do, but
once upon a long a go, there was this British guy in India, who regenerated tea plantations using a composting method he learned (and improved upon) by Indian farmers. He suspected it worked because of all the living things in it, including fungi. He had no way of finding out let alone proving it. To bad that around the same time a German chemist became a lill bit fixated on nitrogen and with the help of a friend invented a "cheap" way to make fertilizer the chemical way... Now we are all brainwashed about the nitrogen thing. Nature has that figured out. Maybe one day we figure out how it works EXACTLY, but until then, I keep choping and dropping. As in my garden there seems to be enough nitrogen in the system, nitrogen fixers don't really want to grow. I tried several: siberian pea shrub, several lupins, they grow for a season, then die. So I stopped trying but the garden is bursting from the seams anyway. Got a letter from the neighbor proving just that.
He is threatening to send the police because of my "weeds are growing through his chain wire fencing" (he send that by registerd letter...)
Yeah, cut it of and put it in your compost, your garden looks, like it desperatly needs it, d***head...
But no. It's mine and he won't get any. Need to weed - the beings in my raspberry patch are hungry... And then I'll put something on my side of the fence that prevents a future plant attack on his precious desert.
There is a famous song about typical German wire-mash-fencing-feuds... he also loves garden gnomes... so I sound as pissed, as I am??? 🤨
I'll go and do some brathing exercises now 🙃
OMG love this comment. Ah yes Haber-Bosch... 😡
and obviously I'm so p*ssed, that my spelling skills totally left me... still finding errors after like 20 times reading and correcting something 😑
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy I just started reading "What your food ate" by David Montgomery and Anne Biklé. It's pretty amazing how many studies there are, proving that industrial agriculture does not work (to put it mildly, very very mildly...) and Bayer and the rest of the agro-poison-mafia keep lying. Oh, of course it's not surprising, that they keep lying, they want to keep the addicts addicted as long as possible. Money, money, money...
I’ve heard / read that the nitrogen fixation sharing between plants is highly variable depending on the Species. The only ones I’m somewhat familiar with are black locust and honey locust, honey locust doesn’t share nitrogen well to other plants at all, but black locust does, with these its dependant on the root exudates i think but i may be remembering wrong.
oh yes, I've heard many things, which is the point here in the video... none of it appears to be based on facts, and instead is just repeated.
Now, plants being able to access nitrogen from the air, grow leaves and drop them is a great benefit to a food forest. However there is no evidence that this happens in the way that many people say it happens, such as a nitrogen fixer just sharing its nitrogen with everyone from the nodules underground.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy yeah i don’t remember if this was from a scholarly article i looked at in school or not if i find it i will share it!
How could one test this nitrogen fixing theory? If we are only lacking data, how could we conduct a highly trustworthy test to verify this theory? What would need to be done to make it highly trustworthy?
I'm not entirely sure. Would have to think about this.
Perhaps the deep taproot of certain plants has more to do with water than nutrients.
Regarding deep tap roots, would they be bringing microbial life to the deeper soils? And if so would that be drawing nutrients to the top soils through microbial movement? 🤔
I bet deep tap roots would help to build soil, I guess the point is that, there is not evidence shows the nutrients below are not drawn from the tap root (or at least not significant).
To a point. Life needs water, air, shelter and food. The deep root could "maybe" give food. The roots also help bring water and air down deeper. The question would be how much? There is decent research on the depth of soil microbiology, and it's actually surprisingly shallow, even in old growth forests.
On the deep tap root question. I have been wondering a similar thing. Water gets into the roots though osmosis in to the cell...doesn't this process favor a water that is closer to distilled? What we can say is that they can access nutrients deeper down that other plants, but, why would they bring up more than they need? In other words, do they have the same nutrients as surrounding plants, only from further down.
No it does not favor a water that’s closer to distilled. Living things do not like a distilled water they require water that has a certain tonicity (concentrations of solutes). Osmosis is the movement of water across a membrane towards the higher tonicity. If the tonicity is off the cells in side the living thing will either collapse or rupture as osmosis sends water in or out of the cells to match the tonicity in the extra cellular space. So it necessarily has to have solutes (minerals) in order to survive being near moisture. In cells those minerals are primarily sodium and potassium in the extra cellular space they could be pretty much anything including glucose. So if your contention is the taproots can not absorb minerals then they have to be sending minerals down to make up for the tonicity. Being that minerals would be necessary just for basic cell function I would assume tap roots are capable of absorbing minerals. Also safe to assume they are capable of absorbing minerals just because most things do even if only by accident. (You’d have to be non porous to not be able to absorb minerals)
@@mannurse7421 thanks for your response. I was not talking about water the roots are exposed to, but the water that the plant is bringing up from the ground. One example of what I am saying is mangrove, wich grow in normal marine salinity but there leaves and stems have way less salt. So, my point is that the plant is bringing up elements that it needs... Not an excessive amount.
@@jcrockett870 isn’t the water the roots are exposed to and the water it is bringing up one in the same?
@@jcrockett870 I imagine individual cells of mangrove roots have high tonicity doesn’t have to be salt necessarily
@@mannurse7421 the water is exactly the same water. However, the chemistry of said water is very different.
The fact that science hasn't studied chop and drop doesn't make it untrue. Unstudied is just unstudied. Anecdotal evidence is evidence.
Thank you for stopping to challenge parroted ideas.
How are the Japanese beetles this year for you? They are bad for me.
tons of them, but managable. They really like the cherries. My neighbours are absolutely swarmed by them, and have almost no foliage on many trees.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy I’m thinking of penning in some of our chickens in the orchard, shake the tree and they rain down, hopefully the chickens will start to learn that when I come in, it’s feeding time haha
the claim is, that roots shrink rather than die off.. both make sense to me.. i would love to read the science of that.. do you know of any articles?
And how compares the fertility of soil in a field without or with nitrogen fixers? if nitrogen fixers increase general soil fertility there might be other causes...
Perhaps organisms which predate on nitrogen fixing bacteria, perhaps organism breaking apart nodules, inadvertedly perhaps, or chemical influences, erosion...
In case the roots shrink, does it take the nodules with it, or might they get stuck in the soil, getting spread by subsoil forces?
besides the question, whether nitrogen fixers add direct benefit to the soil, as some others expressed, and you yourself, this important principle in permaculture
which i love: any process can create many possible benefits, and any benefit can come from many possible processes...
and another principle: the economy of interference... to get as much as possible out of a system, without undermining it's foundations; those cyclic events that support
a constant and stable regeneration.. creating buffers to protect from changes in those cyclic events...
so many things we do might have inadverted benefits, even if they seem useless... or alternatives might be there, which make those actions unnecessary..
if humans are able to build, through intelligent planning, and a deep understanding of nature, food systems (for man and animal alike) which can be still functional in hundreds or thousands of years, with minimal effort... then, and only then, permaculture has been a success...
no matter the mistakes, or misunderstandings...
after all, if there was no misunderstanding, there was no science...
science is the art of misunderstanding, as close as possible to the fact...
once you have understood, you are the fact !
like the native amazonian, considering himself part of nature, even in hunting, in farming, the divisions dissappear...
to become nature is to become what one was born to be... but forgot... as "advanced" culture is so adamant, that to be human is to be seperate...
to be the dominator over nature, the top dog, is the natural state of being... but matter high we build and how far we reach...
what we find, is Nature, reflecting back at us...
we fight against the limitations of nature, we believe... but it is only ourselves we fight. nature is everywhere.. we rise from it, and die into it.
it is beyond death! so it really ourselves, our mortality, our fear of death, we fight! and what is more scary than to be intimately connected?
to loose all seperation?
the religious man is against life! because he fears death, he clings to the afterlife, to enlightenment, to statues, to nothingness and anti being, to methodologies,
middle path etc... he avoids life, by creating otherworldly goals, and means to get there..
the worldly man is against life under the guise of love for matter! for objects, .. for the idea of people and how they should be..
he avoids live by negating the otherworldly and all that is not physical... sensory.. recognisable with instruments.
these two wings of man, of religion, and worldlyness, which can be crippled in choice...
are what can lift man up...
on themselves they are self destructive, against life, oppressive but together they create a dance...
not because of their combination, but because of what connects them...
because we are neither worldly nor religion, not really... just as h2o is neither water, nor ice...
it can take many forms.. and to believe h2o is water, is the same as believing, man is one of two wings..
or three, or infinite... while negating all other possibilities besides that one wing..
to respect all potentials of man, of nature, of Being, is to respect what connects them...
one does not need to understand all branches of at tree, to respect it's flowering... to be the tree is enough!
one can trust in nature, as we evolved in nature.. we don't have to defeat life, to live life!
science is just an indirect way to get to that point of trust...
but we are distracted by the specifics... what disease, what problem...
we can fix many problems... and create many .. nature is not against man.. we are not a flee on its back, we are atoms in its Being
Nothing man does can offend it..
but one must realise, it will never end...
people become so miserable, getting older, because they remember all the problems, and forget all that is beautifull in life! they become hard..
they loose the reality of love, of natural understanding of life.. the bliss of the everyday moment.
as the body and the mind seek and solve problems...
trust in life.. in real connection.. will keep one fresh.. fruity..
politics and science and religion, has its role in life... perhaps temporary.. (most likely)
but all these are but rocks in a dry bed.. without the juice of life, those are simply dead concepts..
LIFE is juicy! energetic.. deep!! oceanic!!!
it is a miserable state to live and die amongst the rocks..
but to come and go as a river... first a spring, then an ocean... how amazing!!
first a seed, then a flowering!! and everything inbetween!
the rocks are not life, though they want to make you believe they are, convince you..
they shake you up a little.. as you river along..
but they can never possess you, controll you really.. they are powerless against the FLOW of life!
their will to power is their weakness.. they exclude love, yet love includes them!!
imagine who will have more strength. the one who is nourished by life, and drinks with totality
or one who is nourished by life, but drinks with reluctance.. afraid of loosing seperation.
both depend on nature.. but the one who accept nature as he accepts himself.. will show real strength.
politics is method of creating conflict within.. to fight oneself... to become weak, and mallable..
But the fire of life is utter strength... it burns even the strongest conviction. the strongest belief, of seperation of self and other.
Thank you for discussing this important topic! I've heard the term 'nitrogen fixer' so often without understanding what it was about. Just watched a video by Jimi Sol channel (ruclips.net/video/A8qTRBc8Bws/видео.htmlsi=v4aczcV2MrCnVgHN) on how nitrogen fixing works. It explains how the nitrogen fixing plants do not directly supply nitrogen to other plants, but do create a habitat for the bacteria that process nitrogen from the air into ammonium, nitrite and nitrate that are plant nutrients. This video also explains the role of fungi on roots and of worms in nitrogen processing and absorption. (It's a little fast so I had to play it multiple times before I got it...) Bottom line, the health of plants depends on life in the soil: adding nitrogen and other nutrients in the form of fertilizer produces short term results but long term trouble.
Sounds like he knows his stuff. Also, even if the plant itself only gives nitrogen to itself, but it gets it from the air and not the soil, then when that plant drops its leaves in the fall, the leaves will then add some nitrogen and carbon to the soil. It's this process which is the main way nitrogen fixers improve fertility of the soils... leaves which have most of their N come from the air.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy Yes, good point! It's wonderful to learn more about plants.
Maybe you are looking for something too specific in the scientific literature. For example it is well known that trees shed off a percentage (the percentage and time of year depending on tree species) of their feeder roots at certain times of the year and regrow new ones as this maintains the feeder roots at the drip line and beyond.
A Canadian researcher Suzanne Simard has shown that fungal networks can transfer nutrients between trees. While not specifically for nitrogen that I can remember she does go into the difficulties of isolating and quantifying the transfers to meet rigorous scientific standards.
I have heard expert gardeners say legumes use up their excess nitrogen as they go through their seed production cycle, but farming research literature has quantified the amount of nitrogen left for the next years crop by pounds per acre for different legume species. I wonder if part of the problem is we need to to disassociate the bacterial community in the nodules from the plant that just made a home for them.
Scientific research can be difficult or impossible to perform due to the need to isolate, measure, and quantify something that works as part of a system. I personally have had issues with many of the scientific papers I read, as I felt they were misleading in the way they isolated certain parts from an overall system. So I read scientific papers with much the same skepticism that I take with so called gardening experts. The take away is to do as much research with the science and garden experts to try to gain knowledge, but try new and different things and see what works for you in your context whether you understand why something works for you or not (I have had some successes with thing that were not supposed to work). A farmer that I thought gave some excellent advice said 10% of your acreage should be given to trying new things (different technics, treatments, crops, varieties).
As far as tap rooted plants it is in the literature that they exude an acid from the root tip to help them work through hard pan and even rock. I am sure you have seen pictures of trees growing up out of a bare rock. This lets the plant take up extra minerals it has dissolved. So while the term nutrients which may be an overstatement might be poor, extra minerals in the carbon material can be higher and in a form more usable by plants. The amount of minerals may be small, but how much do you need to balance your soil?
Loved the video! Lets keep challenging information we receive!
I have a question about your research on nitrogen fixers. Is it that you found no evidence that Nfixers increase the N content of the soil or that you found no evidence that planting Nfixers improve the health of nearby plants?
If you researched both and found no evidence, you can stop reading, but if you simply found that choping Nfixers doesnt increse the N content of your soil, it doesnt mean that Nfixers dont help the plants. For instance, it makes sense to me that Nfixers are helpful by creating a protected breeding ground for good bacteria. Since all plants need this bacteria to intake N, than having this population breeding out to nearby plants is sure to help them intake N also.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you thought of all this already, but I thoughts I’d share just in case.
Oh for sure, it's a great comment, and I tried to elucidate that in the video, but maybe I could have done a better job. The function that I couldn't find information on is that the nitrogen fixer provides nitrogen to other plants while it's still alive. Either by just leeching in the ground (as some espouse) or by root tissue die-back when cut (as many more claim).
HOWEVER, there is a ton of value that N-Fixers give a guild. I mention a few of them in the video. One is simply that they themselves can get N from the air, reducing the draw from the soil, allowing more for other plants. For this reason, they likely allow denser plantings, which allow more microbiology and photosynthesis overall, and also allow deeper water (and air) infiltration into the soils simply by having more roots (more plants).
Also more shade, more windbreaks, boosting further the soil activity and environment for life, water retention etc.
So many reasons why they are good. So many reasons why chopping and dropping and replicating nature systems (grazing) is good. The dubious part is in the claims that many permaculturists make on the mechanisms of the benefit.
@@CanadianPermacultureLegacy thanks for taking the time to reply. I did see you mentioning the overall benefit to the microbiology on rewatch. I think we are on the same page.
Btw you often say you hope your channel inspires us to start planting, well it did for me. This year, I started turning my Montreal backyard into a food forest and I am absolutely loving it.
yeah sometimes I rewatch a video and wish I spoke more on a topic in certain spots. Sometimes I wish I moved on sooner and didn't get caught in tangents. it's a hard balance.
Usually I fix these things in the replies to comments in the comment section.