Jump to content

Talk:Nutrient cycle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Difficulty with this page

[edit]

Hello...I felt that this kind of page was necessary. The terms of recycling are used frequently in the ecological literature in reference to nutrient cycling. Nutrient cycling redirects to biogeochemical cycles. In some ways this should suffice. However, recycling as a term is used extensively enough in the ecological literature that a separate page seems necessary to distinguish it from technological recycling. There is debate and discussion in the literature on complete recycling and if it is possible [1] - the arguments suggest that nature can do this:

"The fact that nature is able to effect complete recycling is shown by the fact that Earth has existed as a closed material system for a long time, and yet without man's intervention appears to maintain a constant concentration of many substances, such as oxygen in the atmosphere. How does nature do it?...Nature's holding tank is what we call the environment. When anthropogenic wastes are added to this holding tank, the concentration of these wastes tend to increase because the rates of the natural recycle process generally are slow compared to rates at which the wastes are added. Since we and the rest of nature must live in this holding tank, the increased concentrations may become intolerable...The complete recycle requirement (for anthropogenic waste)...could be relaxed if some of the substances were allowed to accumulate. In this case the tank would have a finite period of operation, but during that time some of the substances entering it could be completely recycled or transformed, except for the amount accumulated. On the other hand some other substances could be merely accumulated...Could mankind make use of this holding-tank principle to effect complete recycling of anthropogenic wastes? In principle, the answer is yes."[2]

Hence, there is anthropogenic recycling (which the main article points too), which has yet to achieve the complete recycling that nature has achieved for some time. In answer to how nature does this I would add that it is due to the global homeostasis (Gaia if you will) that James Lovelock has discussed; even ignoring Gaia if you don't like that idea, others would accept that there is a cybernetic feedback in nature that self-organizes and maintains these steady-state systems even with sub-levels subjected to disturbance (resilience theory).

I created this article to collate all the terms of ecological recycling under one banner. It is essentially the same as biogeochemical cycles - but it has a slightly different connotation in terms of organic farming and even in the artifical ecosystems created (e.g., MELiSSA - Micro-Ecological Life Support Atlernative [3]) for long-haul space exploration. The difference between ecological and technological recycling is easy to make. What is more difficult, however, is to reconcile the difference between biogeochemical cycles (synonmous with nutrient cycling?) and ecological recycling (=loops in food webs). Is there a difference? Biogeochemical cycling is in essense ecological recycling - but it is more generally used in terms of global systems, whereas ecological recycling is more generally used in terms of organic farming. The latter seems to place more emphasis on biodiversity and food webs.

Here is another way this has been discussed:

"Matter cycles in ecosystems and the conservative closures provided by biogeochemical cycling are rich in information mappings, triggering microbial blooms, new cycles of plant growth, etc. In addition to the global closures provided by element cycling, many lesser types of loops appear in ecosystem networks, derived from the variety of both materialistic and informational interactions between organisms. These have given rise to a systems analysis methodology, loop analysis (Levins 1975)."[4]

As you can see in the last quote they refer to 'many lesser types of loops' in ecosystem networks - which is the thrust for this article. There is no specific reference that discusses this problem - so it makes it difficult. However, the terms 'ecological recycling' or 'nutrient cycling' or 'bio-cycling' or 'natural cycling' appear enough in the literature that it may be confusing to a person reading these terms to understand what is going on. Biogeochemical cycles do refer to the biodiversity (bio) and to the geological feedback (geo) in the exchange, transport, manufacturing, and weathering of minerals. Is this the same, however, as ecological recycling? The problem hinges on the term 'cycle' vs. 'recycle' - one is a metaphor from the wavelike amplitude, while the latter implies that the material goes back into production.

I would appreciate any discussion on this topic - I'm a bit baffled by this even though I'm quite informed about the science of it.Thompsma (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty fixed

[edit]

I think I have figured this out - at least in my head. The confusing part was that the link for nutrient cycle was going to biogeochemical cycle and that article was suggesting that this was synonymous with nutrient cycle. I disagree with this and after reading the literature I think there is justification for this separate page on a nutrient cycle. The biogeochemical cycle can include any form of matter - some kinds which may not be considered nutrients. Although that would be hard to qualify - I mean we are living on a living planet after all - it seems to me that nutrient cycle refers more specifically to the cycling of mineral nutrients - i.e., those particulate pieces of matter that are used for growth and production. Moreover, the nutrient cycle is not about single elements - although they can be part of the nutrient cycle. The nutrient cycle is about all the elements (specifically those that are mineral nutrients) that are cycled together. Hence, a biogeochemical cycle tends to look at the individual elements - some that may not be important or involved in nutrition (such as mercury). There is a longer history in nutrient cycle science going back to mineral theories in the mid 1800's. The biogeochemical cycle was introduced in 1926 as a sub-discipline of geochemistry. The ideas are related, but I think the agricultural connection justifies this separate page.Thompsma (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nutrient cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nutrient_cycle&oldid=1251178068"