Le Potager du Sloth: Gardening without fatigue more than Bio

[JardinierAmateur]

Didier, it was me who had evoked this passage of the video of MSV. And I said: I doubt that in nature a plant feeds a mycorrhizal fungus if it does not find an advantage. And I add: or so, it would be more like a parasite. Does this exist, in this specific case? I doubt it, considering the functioning of the symbiosis, I think that a plant would leave rather part of its alive than to risk to lose too much by the parasite. J4I far less scientific knowledge than you, just an overview of the system. I will not want you for being quick to judge my comm

Julienmos: still questions, but continues, I enjoy!

[izentrop]

It is proven that this activity, the richness in organic matter, the presence of the rhizosphere or the mycorrhizae “block” the development of diseases when inoculated [various tests].

If you have sources, I'm interested I found that:

the acquisition of natural resistance
Soils with wheat blotch caused by the phytopathogenic fungus
Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici (Kwak & Weller, 2013). Roots infected with
fungus selects populations that produce an antibiotic (2,4-
diacetylphloroglucinol, a natural phenol of formula C10H10O5). Their abundance increases
at the end of 3-4 successive wheat crops to a level such as the severity of the disease
decreases dramatically, the soil then being qualified as resistant (Raaijmakers &
Weller, 1998). here

but in this case, no rotation.

[Did67]

So, to avoid any misunderstanding:

1) Selosse demonstrates that ONE given mycorrhizal fungus can have a negative effect on the biomass produced by ONE species of plants, "in vitro" (pot test). In other words, the exchange is unbalanced, as far as biomass is concerned, in favor of the fungus. OR in other words, it provides the plant with fewer advantages (ease of producing biomass or "fertility" if you will) than it costs it.

In theory. Finally, in artificial conditions.

2) I allow myself to think that this strongly biases, in certain cases, the tests. When it comes to exploring the ground in finesse and over greater distances than the roots do, it is obvious that a culture pot is a "bias" (a limit: we considerably limit the possibilities, a kind of like testing a Ferrari on a farm road!).

If it is necessary to show that a plant A communicates with a plant B, or that we find tracer (radioactive) elements of plant A in plant B, the bias may be negligible.

3) I also allow myself to think that the plant will or will not establish symbiosis with the most favorable mycorrhizal fungi or fungi in the situation in which it finds itself. If she was systematically "milked" for 400 million years, she would have been eliminated!

4) I allow myself to think, and Sélosse implied elsewhere in a passage, that plant and fungi mycorrhizal exchange simple molecules (the famous polypeptides - nothing very complicated, they are small chains of amino acids , too small to be proteins, during the digestion, the proteins are first cut into peptides) which allows them to recognize themselves ...

5) It is extremely reductive - we can consider that this is another bias, but I imagine that this was made explicit in the article from which this diagram is taken. A given plant can have many other advantages in a symbiosis. The quantity of biomass is not its primary concern. It is the survival of the species - therefore reproduction, resistance, finding and securing a niche. The concept of "biomass" transpires the major concern of man, yield!

To allow oneself to think means that I do not know anything about it, but that's how I imagine how my vegetable garden works - the Greeks or the Romans or the Gauls allowed themselves to think that when a lightning fell , the gods were angry! So they stopped their brothel, stopped fornication and indeed, the gods were happy and stopped sending lightning. Today, it is said that the storm passes and that the cloud has discharged its electrical charges. We know that lightning can also go from the ground to the clouds, so we can say that men were angry with the gods, who were too messy on earth! [It took ultra-fast cameras to see this]

[to be chafoin]

In the ground, it is not carried away. It's certain. After I do not remember how many decades of treatment, we still find 80 or 90% of the copper in the first 15 cm ... And it decreases very quickly below. This is what creates the problem, via accumulations year after year (when in effect, a treatment is "nothing"). At the same time, for the tablecloths, it's a chance !!! Nothing is ever THAT bad (since nothing is perfect in this world). What is an advantage here and now will be a disadvantage elsewhere and another time. And reciprocally. [This is the main reason why the "ayatollahs" must be wrong somewhere!]

What to choose is not an agronomists' review !!! They resume, generally very seriously of course, information. They investigate ... But they are not immune from error. Most likely, they allude to an insidious pollution, little considered: the rinsing of the devices, even the "surpluses," poured into the sewers. Gardeners are used to this. The farmers have sprayers which "recycle" the rinsing water from the device, in an annex tank. The best equipped have a sort of washing station with a "biobed" (a layer where the rinsing water will be "treated") ...

Do you have the offending passage? I would like to check what they wrote.

Yes here is the link to the article. In rereading, he evokes the effect induced on the pollution of aquifers (by other pollutants than copper) because of the death of organisms killed by copper, which seems understandable. But he ends up talking about a trickle of copper.
https://www.60millions-mag.com/2018/07/ ... aise-11882

[Did67]

No, so written, no complaints. The synthesis is good. The use of the word "germ" is a bit too commonplace, but it is not wrong. We tend to keep calling bacteria "germs".

And indeed, the runoff does exist. I forgot it a bit! I mentioned the rinses and the dumping of remains in the sewers. But a not insignificant part of the pulverized copper is "washed" by the rains and follows the runoff water. At least in conventional "organic" agriculture or market gardening, with tillage, therefore bare soils, where runoff is important (or can be, when the soil breaks down, becomes saturated, as can be seen in the deposits in the parts. bottom of bare plots after a thunderstorm). Under cover, there is little or no runoff, [So much so that in my answer I hadn't thought of surface runoff!] And what is washed out from the plants ends up well in the first ones. cm from the soil, where it is "adsorbed" by the soil's ability to retain the elements - and copper, Cu ion⁺⁺, and very strongly adsorbed, to the point of almost not moving! The environment may be better protected, but the garden is more poisoned. I'm all the more happy not to let this go in my kitchen garden!

[to be chafoin]

It is clear that an agronomist advances even on fragile knowledge. Or sometimes without, from what he imagines to understand of the living system! At risk of crashing. But if the Neanderthals had expected to understand everything before inventing a very very rough agriculture, we would not be here! I am a Neanderthal !!!

From the little that I saw I think I will be a little the same opinion as you, especially with regard to the habitus of the researcher (university?) But I prefer to book me because I have not yet been able to see all the videos. In addition I advanced on the book of Lowenfels and I will make you a small return which will concern this very interesting subject of the mycorrhizal mushrooms arbuscular (and their link with the host plants). I just allow myself a little historical clarification, the Neanderthals did not invent agriculture because we date the existence of this human species between -300 000 (appearance) and -30 000 years (disappearance) and the Neolithic does not begin before -10 000. Nevertheless, homo sapiens crossed with Neanderthal so we all (at least some Europeans and Asians) around 4% of Neanderthal genes!

[Did67]

I came across this article today, thanks to a person who follows this and wants to visit my vegetable garden ...

https://dailygeekshow.com/phenoculture- ... ecticides/

[Did67]

I just allow myself a little historical clarification, the Neanderthals did not invent agriculture because we date the existence of this human species between -300 000 (appearance) and -30 000 years (disappearance) and the Neolithic does not begin before -10 000. Nevertheless, homo sapiens crossed with Neanderthal so we all (at least some Europeans and Asians) around 4% of Neanderthal genes!

You are right.

If I had thought for 5 seconds, I would have realized it. I did not think. I let myself be carried away by the "beauty" of the formula ... Neanderthal as a symbol of "primitive man" ...

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Actually Sélosse is not categorical about the mycorrhizae is that I had noted while watching his lectures.

I wonder if one day someone will fund a long-term work on the subject both in the laboratory but if possible also in situ.

What stands out as a general impression for me of this somewhat arduous series is that we ignore much about the workings of nature and its interactions.

It is surprising for our time that seems able to "understand everything" but also exhilarating because it seems that there is still a lot to discover ... yum

[Did67]

Come on, I'll bring it back. In an excellent book that I know well, I write something like: "We still know very little about essential soil processes. Perhaps we are sending too many probes to Mars but not enough to our gardens?" ...

I was talking about humification (formation of humic substances from fibrous organic matter - cellulose, lignin).

This is also true for mycorrhizations. I looked for a reliable source (scientifically referenced) that gives the life expectancy of earthworms. I've found nothing. Just this "info" that I'm not sure at all, that worms live 7-10 years. Repeated from each other - which, to me, makes her suspicious!

But what surprised me is that Sélosse seems to ignore known "agronomic" things, such as the work of Fortin and the Canadians on the dependence of cultivated plants on P. That is more my "complaint". A little "researcher in his ivory tower?" [that said, I'll get his book, because scientific "prudence" also has virtues - he insists, as I have often done here, on the need for "controls" - in science, the sample without treatment ; what I call "all other things being equal" tests. So I wouldn't want my "scratches" to spoil the whole thing, which still lays an excellent foundation. It is up to everyone to then make their "conjectures" and "move", in real and concrete life, at the risk of being on the wrong track, insufficiently supported]