3 ms·
> Not because the plants grow faster, because you can grow 3x as many of them. This is against current consensus. The consensus is that plants do grow faster w
by 5efh456 7y ago
> Not because the plants grow faster, because you can grow 3x as many of them.
This is against current consensus. The consensus is that plants do grow faster when you put fertilizer in the soil and the yield increase is because of that, not because of the "grass years".
There are plenty of studies on this, one example:
> Crop yields were increased by 19–41% (rice) and 61–76% (rapeseed) during the two years of rice-rapeseed rotation under NPK fertilization compared to PK fertilization across the study sites. Yield responses to fertilization were ranked NPK > NP > NK > PK, illustrating that N deficiency was the most limiting condition in a rice-rapeseed rotation, followed by P and K deficiencies.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01412-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01412-0
Anyway, you are making my point. Notice how you say that crop rotation, soil quality are extremely important. So much for CO2.
- samatman 7y agoBottlenecks are only exclusive when the processes run serially. All of water, CO2, and nitrogen (not an exclusive list) can stunt growth, and increasing the levels of any one of them can accelerate it. Your own link points to this, referring as it does to the "most limiting condition", and the fact that addressing P and K deficiencies also increases yield, but not as much as also addressing deficiencies in N.
- 5efh456 7y agoTrue, but I'm willing to bet that N deficiency is pretty wild spread world-wide, including in natural soil. Probably the second dominant stunt factor on plants (after water), and way before CO2.
- samatman 7y agoYes and no. Nitrogen deficiency is the factor that would promote the most growth, but at the same time, it's fair to think of all plants as constantly CO2 starved. We would be pretty miserable at 800ppm CO2, but plants would love it.