6253 Johnson Quivira

Soil Microbes:
Their Powerful
Influence in
Agroecosystems
David C. Johnson Ph.D.

Institute for Energy and the Environment
New Mexico State University

David C. Johnson- NMSU Institute for Sustainable Agricultural Research (ISAR)
davidcjohnson@nmsu.edu
Part 1:
peak (s)oil…!

Loss
Soil of Soil From
Loss (Tons/hectare/year)
Water and
Wind Erosion
(Metric Tons/Hectare/Year)
0.5-1.0
NEW SOIL U.S. U.S. INDIA CHINA

FORMATION CROPLAND RANGELAND
RATE
-6
-10.8
-16.4
Worldwide,
-18
75 Billion tons
of fertile soil are lost each year

Desertification
Soil Salinization
Pollution Through
Chemical Application New
and Runoff Subdivisions

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/energy-supply.php

$45/barrel
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-03-05/the-paradox-of-oil-the-cheaper-it-is-the-more-it-costs

MINIMUM EROEI (5-9)
required for the BASIC
functions of an industrial society
Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI)

2.5
2.3
Energy Returned on
Energy Invested (EROI)
FOOD CALORIE RETURN PER ENERGY CALORIE INVESTED
2
Or
1.5
Food Calories Produced

Per
1
Fossil Fuel Calorie Used
0.5
0.1
0
1940 2015
Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Pimentel, David and Giampietro, Mario. Carrying Capacity Network

Most Productive Ecosystems
Kelp Beds and Reefs 2500
Swamp and Marsh 2000
Cultivated Land 650
Temperate Rain Forest 1300
Tropical Rain Forest 2200
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

MNPP (g dry aboveground biomass/m2/year
Whittaker, (1978)

Most Productive Ecosystems
Kelp Beds and Reefs 2500
Cultivated Land 650
Temperate Rain Forest 1300
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

MNPP (g dry aboveground biomass/m2/year
Whittaker, (1978)

The Task We Have Before Us…!
• Produce more food,
• On declining land area,
• With soils that are continually being
degraded
• Using less (or poorer quality) water and
• Less energy and fewer natural resource
amendments!

Land Plants
~470 MYA
Glomeromycota
Bacteria
~400 to 500 MYA
~4 BYA
Animals
~750 MYA Photosynthesis
~3.5 BYA
Multicellular Life
~1.6 bya
Oxygen Rich
Fungi Atmosphere
~2.2 BYA ~2.4 BYA

Stomach Soil
http://cropandsoil.oregonstate.edu/co
ntent/soil-microbes
Mouth Root Nodule
http://creating-a-new-
Root
Stomach earth.blogspot.com/2012/09/proof
-of-complex-plantbacterial.html
http://ngm.nationalg
eographic.com/201
3/01/125-
http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/Daily-
microbes/oeggerli-
Comments/38285/Examples-of-bacterias-shared-lives
photography

What do these
micro-organisms
do for us?

Help digest our food, Turn on and off genes in
Generate nutrients for our body that regulate
us, brain development, anxiety,
Synthesize vitamins, depression and emotional
behavior (Gilbert, Sapp & Tauber 2012),
If disturbed….these
Breakdown xenobiotics,
functions
Prevent asthma
Detoxify carcinogens,
and skin
diseases in infants (Arrieta et
can be compromised!
Promote cell renewal,and al., 2015)
Activate and support our Alter immune system
immune system (NHGRI 2015) development, promoting or
Control our appetites and avoiding allergic disorders
cravings (Norris et al., 2013) in later life (Marsland & Salami, 2015)
Disruption and Restoration of Microbiomes
Crohn’s
Disease
&
Fecal
Microbial
Transplants

Plants are no
different from us as
they are also
outnumbered by
their Microbial
Counterpart
and depend on them
for nutrient
acquisition,
pathogen protection
and gene regulation,
etc.
So If we can fix human
microbiomes….
Can we do this in our agricultural and

rangeland soils?
Can it be this easy???

We Should Not Underestimate the
Power of Biology
• Biomass Doubling Rates (Mass)

–Plants ~2.5-7 days.
–Fungi ~1.25-2.0 hours. (Boekhout, 2003)
–Bacteria approximately every 20 minutes.

The Mass of 747 earths!

C:N= 50-300:1
C:N= 9-13:1
C:N= 5:1
C:N= 30:1
C:N= 20:1
http://www.sltec.com.au/sltec/images/cartoons/SLTEC-166-SOIL-FOOD-WEB.jpg

Plant Succession Ladder as a Function of
Fungal:Bacterial Ratio (F:B)
Where we need to be!

Fungal
F:B = 100:1 to 1000:1

Conifer, Old Growth Forests
Increasing Ecosystem
F:B = 5:1 to 100:1
Deciduous Trees
F:B =2:1 to 5:1 Shrubs, Vines, Bushes
Productivity
F:B = 1:1
Late Successional Grasses, Row Crops
F:B = 0.75
Mid-grasses, Vegetables
F:B = 0.3
Early Grasses, Bromus, Bermuda
F:B = 0.1
Weeds (High NO3, Lack of Oxygen)
F:B = 0.01Cyanobacteria, True Bacteria, Protozoa, Fungi, Nematodes
Bacterial
100% Bacterial
Bare Soil Parent Material
Where we are currently in Elaine Ingham- www. soilfoodweb.com

agroecosystems!

The Beginning to this research path….
Dairy Cow Manure
United States Department of Dairy Manure is

Agriculture (USDA) needed a
composting system that Very Saline
allowed: (30-40 mS/cm)
• minimum infrastructure & labor investment,

• an efficient and low-cost process,
• a most importantly….. a superior end product.

Johnson-Su No-Turn Composting Bioreactor

Johnson-Su Composting Bioreactor

Johnson/Su Static Composting
Technology
• Reduces water usage by a factor of 6 times
• Reduces composting time by 66%
• Results in a low salinity compost (~2-3 mS/cm)
• Amenable to incorporation of vermicomposting after
thermophilic phase (observed 10X N increase in end product)
Produces a “HIGH QUALITY” nutrient rich, fungal

dominated, high-microbial-biomass & bio-diverse compost

~5 times more
fungal mass

Experiment 1
Multiple Source
Compost Assessment

Plant Growth Comparison to Eight Local
Composts Using Chile Plants
Charcoal
Premium Organic
Miracle Sterilized Composted Potting Soil Charcoal Compost
Peat Humus Omni Org Potting Top Soil
Grow Manure Cow Manure Natures Way Compost (watered 4
Soil Top Choice
months)
Trial Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12
% Saturation 122 110 237 121 91.4 111 115 117 126 156
Calcium (meq/L) 96.6 7.48 7.34 43.6 5.44 43.7 72.8 7.59 6.9 10.1
ESP (%) 27.3 21.3 12.1 32.3 39.3 30.9 28.4 21.7 1 3.2
Copper (ppm) 3.96 9.39 1.8 4.4 15.29 9.72 2.77 5.57 1.43 1.81
EC (mmhos/cm) 58.1 15.3 11.7 40.5 39.9 66.3 60.3 6.05 2.92 3.84
Fe (ppm) 65.1 194.9 39.58 52.05 146.5 59.23 41.16 74.44 7.97 15.49
Standard K (ppm) 13300 3640 4450 7480 102 15600 11700 975 945 1010
Soil Mg (meq/L) 65.1 8.02 8.01 31.3 3.71 55.7 57.8 3.83 3.53 10.8
Tests Mn (ppm) 5.66 24.19 45.17 6.74 13.61 6.26 7.64 16.4 12.89 22.16
NO3-N (ppm) 3052.7 12.2 30.5 74.7 1057.6 1971.9 2115.3 5.1 19.1 20.13
Org Matter (%) 21.35 19.23 38.5 20.98 15.27 20.05 18.44 20.1 14.57 16.54
pH 7.2 8.5 7.8 7.5 9.6 7.8 7.1 7.7 7.9 7.78
P (ppm) 752.6 482.1 869.4 957.8 2285.9 434.7 365.6 298.9 656.9 835.4
Na (meq/L) 237 53.4 28.2 203 95.6 220 224 47 6.21 10.1
SAR 26.36 19.18 10.18 33.17 44.7 31.21 27.72 19.67 2.72 3.12
Biological Zn (ppm) 32.9 63.67 24.34 26.52 43.82 29.11 28.72 30.8 16.32 27.88
Test Fungal:Bacterial 0.027 0.007 0.031 0.003 0.067 0.060 0.194 0.070 0.404 0.420
Growth Volume (mL) 3804 732 2994 1680 1096 7984 8923 325 15626 17579
Greenhouse Trial

Nitrogen Phosphorus
r2= 0.001 r2= 0.041
Potassium Organic Matter
r2= 0.003
r2= 0.122

r2=0.88

Experiment 1 Observations
• N, P, and K & Soil Organic Matter were not

good predictors of plant growth.
• Fungal:Bacterial Ratio was a good predictor of

plant growth

Experiment 2
Homogenous-Source
Compost Assessment
(Biomass Assessment Only)

Chile Plants
Starting Soil Carbon Percent

Plant (Root and Canopy)
Aboveground Plant Biomass Carbon (g) vs. F:B Ratio
r2= 0.91
0.31 1.01 1.72 2.67 3.93 4.92

Beginning Soil C (%)

r2= 0.99
0.31 1.01 1.72 2.67 3.93 4.92


Total System New C
Plant + Root C
>70%
Carbon Total
Flow System
into New
Soils Carbon
Fixed
by the
Chile
Plant
0.31 1.01 1.72 2.67 3.93 4.92

Experiment 2 Observations
• Observations from Experiment 1 were

confirmed
• “New Soil Carbon” strongly correlated to
beginning soil Fungal:Bacterial ratio.
• Significant plant photosynthate resources are
committed towards increasing soil carbon.

Experiment 3
(Repeat)
Homogenous Source
Compost Assessment
(Tracking C, N & Respiration C Partitions)

0.04 0.84 1.60
2.33 3.02 3.68
F:B Ratio

Root Carbon
18
16
14
12
Carbon (g)
10
0
0.04 0.84 1.6 2.33 3.02 3.68
F:B Ratio

Shoot Carbon
18
16
14
12
Carbon (g)
10
0
0.04 0.84 1.6 2.33 3.02 3.68
F:B Ratio

Fruit Carbon
18
16
14
12
Carbon (g)
10
0
0.04 0.84 1.6 2.33 3.02 3.68
F:B Ratio

Total Plant Carbon
18
16
14
12
Carbon (g)
10
r2= 0.99
8
0
0.04 0.84 1.6 2.33 3.02 3.68
F:B Ratio

New Soil Carbon
18
16
14
12
Carbon (g)
10
0
0.04 0.84 1.6 2.33 3.02 3.68
F:B Ratio

Respiration Carbon
18
16
14
12
Carbon (g)
10
0
0.04 0.84 1.6 2.33 3.02 3.68
F:B Ratio

Carbon Partitioning vs. Increasing F:B Ratio
% New Carbon Maximum System
Going Into the Carbon Partitioning (g) Carbon Capture
18 Soil 100%
100%
16 90%90%
80%80%
Respiration Carbon
14
Root C 70%70%
12 r2= 0.97 Soil Carbon
Shoot C 60%60%
Carbon (g)
10 Increase
50%50%
8 Fruit C
Fruit Carbon
40%40%
6 New Soil C
30%30%
Total
4 Resp C
Shoot Carbon Plant
20%20%
2
Carbon
10%10% Root Carbon
0 0% 0%
0.04 0.84 1.6 2.33 3.02 3.68
Fungal:Bacterial Ratio
Bacterial Fungal

Nitrogen Partitioning vs. Increasing F:B Ratio
Nitrogen Partitioning (g) Maximum System
1.2
Nitrogen Fixation
Root N
1 Soil Nitrogen
Shoot N
Increase
0.8
Nitrogen Mass (g)
Fruit N
0.6
Total New Fruit Nitrogen
0.4 Soil N Total
Shoot Nitrogen Plant
0.2 Nitrogen
Root Nitrogen
0
0.04 0.84 1.6 2.33 3.02 3.68
-0.2
Fungal:Bacterial Ratio

Respiration

Soil Carbon vs. Fungal:Bacterial Ratio
4.00
3.50
3.00
Fungal Bacterial Ratio
y = 0.0997x - 0.1095
2.50 R² = 0.9988
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Soil Carbon (g)

Cumulative Soil C Respiration
4.5
3.5 Only a
Cumulatibe Soil Respiration (g C)
3 y = -0.003x2 + 0.2081x + 0.6128 4 times

R² = 0.9523
Increase in
2.5 Soil
2
Carbon
Respiration
1.5
0.5
20 Times Increase in Beginning Soil Carbon
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Soil Carbon (g)

Respiration
50%
45%
Percent of Original Carbon Respired (%) 40%
35%
4 times
Decrease
30%
in Relative
25% Soil
20%
Carbon
Respiration
15%
10%
5% y = -0.108ln(x) + 0.4987
R² = 0.9452
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Beginning Soil Carbon (g)

Important Observations
• In these experiments, carbon partitioning and plant

growth could be predicted by Fungal:Bacterial ratio
(r2 = 0.99)
• Soil microbial community population and structure
have strong influence on the partitioning of carbon
into plants, soils and respiration.

Does It Work In the Field?

Field Trials of a
Biologically Enhanced
Agricultural Management
(BEAM)
Approach

Control (No Previous 1 Year’s Previous
Covercrop Application) Covercrop Application
Total Dry Biomass Total Dry Biomass
Production = Production =
1 ton/Acre 5 tons/Acre

BEAM
Transitioning
Conventional 1.5 years
150# Nitrogen/Acre

Cotton Production Chile Production
3,000 25
2,500
2,472 20 20.8
2,000
POUNDS LINT/ACRE
15
TONS/ACRE
1,500 B B
1,548
E E
10 10.5
1,000
A C A
M O M C
N 5 O
500
V N
V
0 0
Cotton-BEAM Cotton-Conventional (avg) Chile-BEAM Chile-Conventional (avg)

Changes in Soil Macro and Micro- Nutrients
with “BEAM”
Percent 2
Months 0 6 8 15 19 R Regression
Increase
Manganese (mg/kg) 3.25 1.86 1.65 14.31 40.14 1135% R² = 0.969 2nd Order
Iron (mg/kg) 4.89 4.12 2.66 27.01 59.19 1110% R² = 0.9892 2nd Order
NO3-N (mg/kg) 1.5 1.55 2.00 2.35 3.1 107% R² = 0.9847 Linear
SOM (%) 0.75 1.25 1.22 1.49 1.41 88% R² = 0.7854 Linear
Magnesium (mg/kg) 1.09 0.075 0.81 1.67 1.99 83% R² = 0.7954 2nd Order
Calcium (meq/L) 4.09 2.82 3.00 6.07 7.19 76% R² = 0.6367 Linear
Kjeldahl N (mg/kg) 633 719 739.00 752 1041 64% R² = 0.8244 2nd Order
Phosphorus (mg/kg) 6.9 12.2 10.00 15.3 11.3 64% R² = 0.4624 Linear
Zinc (mg/kg) 0.5 0.63 0.48 0.93 0.81 62% R² = 0.6652 Linear
Copper (mg/kg) 1.17 1.1 1.04 1.74 1.64 40% R² = 0.6591 Linear
Potassium (mg/kg) 30 33 32.00 42 41 37% R² = 0.8712 Linear
20 month study, 5 sampling periods

Higher Biomass Production
19.2 mt C ha-1 yr-1
Advanced 4279
Transitional 1980
10.7 tons C ha-1 yr-1
Cultivated Land 650
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

MNPP (g dry aboveground biomass/m2/y)r

8
Reduced Soil Respiration
7
Relative Respiration Rate
6
One Year Field Study
5 4 to 6
2012 Greeenhouse
Greenhouse Times
4
Decrease
2013 Greenhouse
Greenhouse
3 in
2
Respiration
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Soil Carbon Percent---Soil Fertiilty
Low Fertility High Fertility

Practicing a Biologically Enhanced Agriculture
Management (BEAM) Approach Offers:
• Faster and Greater Biomass Growth
• An increase in microbial carbon-use-efficiencies.
• Reduced soil respiration rates .
• Increased soil fertility .

Part 2:
No-Regrets Carbon Capture in New
Mexico

EPA’s Rule 111(d)
–Requires a ~30% reduction in electrical power
plant CO2 emissions beginning 2020 to 2050.
–Approximately 6 million tons CO2/year reduction
required in NM
–Individual States and Power Companies are
responsible and liable for these reductions.
And you, as the consumer, will pay for the

costs to reduce CO2 emissions

Rule 111(d) Allows:
• Outside the fence solutions for atmospheric carbon

reduction.
• Adoption of currently existing mechanisms being
used for carbon reduction.
• Assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
for agricultural solutions towards carbon reduction.
However,
EPA is promoting Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
as a preferred method…

CAPEX Costs of CCS Pilot Power Plants
Kemper County Coal
Mississippi
$6.1 Billion
3 Mtpa
$81.33/ton CO2
+ Financing (2.4 X Capex)
+Parasitic Load Costs
+O&M
SaskPower- Boundary Petra Nova-Texas

Dam $6 Billion
$1.467 Billion 3 Mtpa
Net
$80.00/ton CO2 in
Increase
1 Mtpa
$58.68/ton CO2 CO 2 Production
+ Financing (2.4 X Capex)
+Parasitic Load Costs
+ Financing (2.4 X Capex) from
+O&M
+Parasitic Load Costs 240 MW,to 4000 mtCOmt
+O&M 300 4,600 2/day
Increase Oil Production
CO
(0.2 to 0.4 2/year
tons CO2/barrel oil)

Costs of CCS
$400
COST/TON CO2 ($)

$345
$276
$300
Total
$200 Cost/Ton
Chart Title CO2
$100
$400
COST/TON CO2 ($)

$300
$0
$200 Low High
Transportation and Storage 1 $100 $22 $36
$0
1 Low High
Overhead and Maintenance
Transportation and Storage $22
$22 $36
$22
Overhead and Maintenance
Parasitic Loads 2 Parasitic Loads
$22
$90
$90 $22
$90
$90
Financing Financing $84 $84 $116 $116
CAPEX $59 $81
3
CAPEX $59 $81
1 United States Carbon Sequestration Council, Enhanced Oil Recovery & CCS, January 14, 2011.
2 The Costs of CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage, Post-demonstration CCS in the EU, www.zeroemissionsplatform.edu
3 http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/10/around-the-world-in-22-carbon-capture-projects/

OFFSET COST COMPARISON COST ($)/TON ACTUAL CO2
OFFSET
High Low
$625.00
Power Company Energy Efficiency
$155.00
$333.55
Photovoltaics
$130.52
$345
CCS (Geologic)
$276
$0.00
CCS (Enhanced Oil Recovery) No Net CO2 Sequestered
$0.00
$29.00
Cost of RECs
$18.13
$22.00
Cost of BEAM Cost of BEAM
$17.00

CCS Liabilities with
Geo-Sequestration
• Migration of injected CO2,
• Unintended leaks,
• Seismic activity,
• Acidification of aquifers driving up contaminant
concentrations, and
• Long term monitoring
No Beneficial Ecosystem Services!

CCS Liabilities
• Civil Liabilities where third parties have suffered harm

and seek compensation.
• Administrative liabilities where authorities are given
powers to serve some form of enforcement or clean-up order.
• Emissions trading liabilities where an emissions
trading regime provides a benefit for CO2 storage and an
accounting mechanism is in place should there be a
subsequent leakage.

What Does BEAM Offer
Towards Soil Carbon
Sequestration?

Observed "Long Term" Soil
Carbon Capture Rates
67 Long Term No-Till Studies

Carbon (Metric Tons C Ha-1 yr-1)
Arable Cropping Systems

19.2
P
o Capacity @
Agroecosystems
t 0.24% soil C
10.7
e increase/year
n
B 75 years
t
Percent of E
i storage
Cropland A capacity
a
Area Required 0.57 0.7 M
to Reduce All
0.2 l
Anthropogenic West (2002) Niggli (2009) Lal (2004) Transitional BEAM Advanced BEAM
Fossil Fuel 852% 2,430% 694% 45% 25%

Emissions

Benefits of Soil Carbon Markets
• Legitimate Market providing
– Equitable pricing and rules
– Agreed upon estimation techniques for amounts and
ownership
– Pre-determined transaction costs (including measurement
and verification
– Transparency & security for buyers, sellers, and the public
– Traceable, trackable and verifiable
– Real, Additional, and Permanent

BEAM Ecosystem Services
• Increases • Reduces
– Soil fertility. – Plowing and heavy tillage
– Water Storage in soils – Fertilizer Application
– Plant water use efficiencies – Downstream pollution of streams,
– Soil nutrient availability rivers, lakes, aquifers, estuaries,
oceans and coral reefs
Allows farmers to transition to a Sustainable

and Ecosystem-friendly approach to
agriculture.

How Can This Help
New Mexico?

Pair Soil Carbon Capture with a Voluntary
Carbon Market in New Mexico
• Money will go directly to participating farmers.
• Improves New Mexico’s farm and ranch
communities.
• Money stays and recirculates in New Mexico.
• Promotes satellite businesses for seed production,
farm equipment and other support industries.
• Brings in out-of–state revenue for energy produced
in New Mexico being shipped to other states.

Cost to Accomplish Reduction of the World’s
Annual GHG Emissions = $617 Billion/year
Agricultural Subsidies Energy Subsidies Health Related Damages
$281 Billion Annual $500 Billion Annual $1.43 Trillion/year
$4 Trillion $4.9 Trillion $19.3 Trillion

Stranded Energy Assets ($1.4 Trillion/Year for Next Two Decades)

Legislative Efforts Needed to Recognize Soil
Carbon as a Carbon Offset
• As of April 20th, Utah is the only state that has signed a law
(Resolution 8) recognizing soil carbon increases in range,
farm and forestry lands for carbon offsets in a carbon market
• New Mexico’s Senator Sapien introduced a similar bill
(SB630) in the 2015 Legislature and the action was
postponed indefinitely.
Legal recognition of soil carbon in NM is necessary for

industry participation in a carbon market!

Employing BEAM on NM farmlands will help
the State of New Mexico and energy
producers comply with EPA 111(d) in an
economically feasible way while greatly
improving New Mexico’s economy,
agricultural lands
and
ranchers and farmers livelihoods.

Align yourself with nature!
Tao Te Ching
Questions?

Viruses Metagenome
Plants Diversity Tree
Advanced BEAM
Nematodes Soil
Glomus
Bacteria
Fungi
Unknown
(Protozoa)
Bars represent
Single Cell
population
Organisms
dynamics
Chordata
Worms
Insects
Algae

Percent Based
Analysis of
BEAM soil
Metagenome
Select Bacteria

This is a
Breakdown of
all Bacteria
Select
Rhizobiales

This is a
Breakdown of
all Rhizobiales
Select Rhizobium
(Endosymbiotic
nitrogen fixing
bacteria)

This is a
Breakdown of
all Rhizobium
species in a
BEAM soil.
21 species

Eukarya
Represents only
1% of the
Metagenome but
the Diversity is
incredible
Select
Glomeromycetes

Glomeromycetes
diversity (17 species)
in an advanced BEAM
soil!

Reduced Soil Respiration
4 7
3.5 6
Soil C Respiration (g C/m2/day)
3
5
Soil C Percent (%)

2.5
Axis Title
4
2
3
1.5
1
2
0.5 1
0
Desert Control Conventional Transitional Advanced
(0.3% C) (0.6%C) (0.6%C) (1.52%C) (7.6%C)

Increases Microbial Biomass
Conventional
23 Times Increase
in Fungal Mass
Control
Transitional
Transitionsal
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ug Fungi/g dry soil

Experiment 3 Findings (cont.)
• Significant plant photosynthate resources are

committed towards: 1) nitrogen fixation (with chile
being a non-leguminous plant) and 2) controlled
increases in soil carbon content.
• Even in low productivity soils, significant
percentages of the plant’s photosynthate are utilized
to build up soil carbon. (93% in poor fertility soils).

References
• Bellarby, J., Foereid, B., Hastings, A., Smith, P. (2008): Cool Farming: Climate impacts of
agriculture and mitigation potential, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam (NL). 44 p
• Boden et al., (2013) Ranking of the Worlds Countries by 2009 Total CO2 Emissions from Fossil-
fuel burning, cement Production and gas Flaring. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
Http://cdiac.orni.gov/trends/emis/top2009.txt
• Boekhout, V. Robert, ed. (2003). Yeasts in Food: Beneficial and Detrimental aspects. Behr's
Verlag. p. 322. ISBN 978-3-86022-961-3. Retrieved January 10, 2011.
• Buck L.E. (2004) A review and assessment of its scientific foundations: Eco-agriculture
http://www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/documents/publications/EcoAgricultureReport.pdf.
• Chabbi, A., C. Rumpel. (2009) Organic matter dynamics in agro-ecosystems: the knowledge
gaps. European Journal of Soil Science 60(2):153-157.
• Fernandez-Martinez, M. et al. (2014) Nutrient availability as the key regulator of global forest
carbon balance. Nature Climate Change doi:10.1038/nclimate2177/.
• Giorgio P. A. del , J.J. Cole. (1998) Bacterial growth efficiency in natural aquatic systems. Annu.
Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29:503-541.
• King, G.M. (2011) Enhancing soil carbon storage for carbon remediation: potential contributions
and constraints by microbes. Trends in Microbiology 19 2:75-84 doi:10.1016/j.tim.2010.11.006.

References
• S.A. Khan, R.L. Mulvaney, T. R. Ellsworth, and C. W. Boast. (2007) The Myth of Nitrogen
Fertilization for Soil Carbon Sequestration. J. Environ. Qual. 36:1821–1832.
• Lal, R. (2004) Agricultural activities and the global carbon cycle. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.
70:103-116..
• Mulvaney, R.L., S.A. Khan, R.R. Ellsworth. (2009) Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers deplete soil
nitrogen: a global dilemma for sustainable cereal production. J. Environ. Qual. 38:2295- 2314.
• Niggli, U., Fließbach, A., Hepperly, P. and Scialabba, N. 2009. Low Greenhouse Gas
Agriculture: Mitigation and Adaptation Potential of Sustainable Farming Systems. FAO, April
2009, Rev. 2 – 2009
• Paul, L.R., B.K. Chapman, C.P. Chanaway. (2007) Nitrogen fixation associated with Suillus
tomentosus tuberculate ectomycorrhizae on Pinis contorta var. latifolia. Ann Bot.
June:99(6):1101-9.
• Schmidt M.W.L. et al. (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property.
Nature 478:49-56
• Sinsabaugh, R.L., S./ Manzoni, D.L. Moorhead, A. Richter (2013) Carbon use efficiency of
microbial communities: stoichiometry methodology and modelling. Ecology Letters doi:
10.1111/ele.12113.
• Six, S.D. Frey, R.K. Thiet, K.M. Batten. (2006) Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon
sequestration in agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:555-569.

References
• Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F.
O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko (2007): Agriculture. In Climate Change (2007):
Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave,
L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and NewYork,
NY, USA. Available at
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/final_pdfs_ar4/Chapter08.pdf
• Sollins P. et al. (2009) Sequential density fractionation across soils of contrasting
mineralogy: evidence for both microbial and mineral controlled soil organic matter
stabilization. Biogeochemistry 96:209-231.
• West, T.O., Post, W.M. (2002) Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop
rotation: a global data analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1930-1946.
• Wright, S., K.A. Nichols. (2002) Glomalin: Hiding place for a third 661 of the world’s soil
carbon reserves. Agricultural Research
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/outreach/point1.cfm

References
• (oilprice.com/Energy.General/BPs-Latest-Estimate-Says-Worlds-Oil-Will-Last-53.3-
Years.html)
• United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, Statistics Analysis Service, Compendium
of Agricultural-Environmental Indicators 1989–91 to 2000 (Rome, November 2003), p. 11.

6253 Johnson Quivira

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6253 Johnson Quivira

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6253 Johnson Quivira

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Microbes:

David C. Johnson Ph.D.

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

NEW SOIL U.S. U.S. INDIA CHINA

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

Food Calories Produced

New Mexico State University

Swamp and Marsh 2000

Cultivated Land 650

Temperate Rain Forest 1300

Tropical Rain Forest 2200

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

New Mexico State University

Swamp and Marsh 2000

Cultivated Land 650

Temperate Rain Forest 1300

Tropical Rain Forest 2200

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

Mouth Root Nodule

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

Can we do this in our agricultural and

Can it be this easy???

New Mexico State University

• Biomass Doubling Rates (Mass)

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

Where we need to be!

F:B = 100:1 to 1000:1

Where we are currently in Elaine Ingham- www. soilfoodweb.com

New Mexico State University

United States Department of Dairy Manure is

• minimum infrastructure & labor investment,

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

Produces a “HIGH QUALITY” nutrient rich, fungal

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

r2= 0.001 r2= 0.041

Potassium Organic Matter

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University

• N, P, and K & Soil Organic Matter were not

• Fungal:Bacterial Ratio was a good predictor of

New Mexico State University

New Mexico State University