Talk:Humus

message: Should "humic matter" be directed here?
Kjkolb 09:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
::It does now. DavidHallett 23:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone know where the word Humus comes from, is it related to the dip? Trcunning 08:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Latin for soil.  --Lambiam 12:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I propose we merge soil organic matter into humus, as they cover similar ground. This is part of a large discussion, please feel free to join in here. Anxietycello (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose  From the WP:SOIL perspective, humus dominates, but is only one component of soil organic matter, the subdominant components being live roots (10%) live critters (5%), and pre-humus organic matter: recognizable dead stuff .  Narrower perspectives exclude the living, but none narrowly exclude decaying plant matter (pre-humus) with soil organic matter.  Example: lab reported soil organic matter: the procedure is intended to quantify every molecule of non-mineral C (thus no carbonates) sent in by the soil sampler. Not all humus is a component of soil: leaf mold, compost. Humus and soil organic matter should be two separate articles.--Paleorthid (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose per Paleorthid above. Humus is a huge topic and may need splitting not merging. Plumpurple (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: The image caption doesn't state the one thing it should: Which of the layers is humus. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: There ought to be a section on this. I am guessing: high nitrogen fertilizers, compaction, regular plowing... (?) V.B. (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is a type of fungus that can destroy humus. Humus itself is essentially an inert material with respect to plants and soil microbes as the usable nutrients nitrogen, sulfur, calcium, etc. have been stripped out of the original material and the end product, humus, is essential a waste product with little food value. Soil nutrient ions can attach to the humus and afford plants those nutrients but humus by itself has little food value. It acts as a means of storing nutrients as absorbed and adsorbed ions. The fungi apparently use some of the material for food and building its body. Humus is stabilized by its attachment to clay, making it further resistant to breakdown by soil bacteria. In the very wet, high temperatures of Amazonia, humus is destroyed by fungi, and clay is washed from the soil leaving no colloids to hold on to the nutrient ions unless charcoal is incorporated. Charcoal is very, very stable to decomposition. Zedshort (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What destroys stable humus? 

message: What's the difference between humus and compost ? Reading both articles, this is not clear to me. There is a documentary where a Mennonite "soil fertility expert" attempts to define both, explaining that humus is compost further degraded. --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right in calling attention to this subject. I think that both articles are not properly explained, in order to see the distinction, that no doubt exists. I take note to do something about it, in case nobody is willing to act more quickly than me. --Auró (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus is naturally produced in the decomposition of soil organic matter. There is an article about soil organic matter, so this is the first place to act, and where I will begin.--Auró (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference with compost 

message: I propose a new section, Criticism...:
With an explanation build around these excerpts from :
:[biogeochemical] processes convert dead plant material into organic products that are able to form intimate associations with soil minerals, making it difficult to study the nature of soil organic matter. Early research based on an extraction method assumed that a 'humification' process creates recalcitrant (resistant to decomposition) and large 'humic substances' to make up the majority of soil 'humus'. However, these 'humic substances' have not been observed by modern analytical techniques. This lack of evidence means that 'humification' is increasingly questioned, yet the underlying theory persists in the contemporary literature, including current textbooks. 
:The conceptual problem with defining 'humic substances' by an extraction process is threefold: 1) ... extraction is always incomplete... 2) ...the harsh alkaline treatment ... giving the resulting 'humic' and 'fulvic' fractions  ... an exaggerated chemical reactivity... 3) The development of this extraction preceded theory, tempting scientists to develop explanations ... rather than develop an understanding of the nature of all organic matter in soil. Over time, this attempt to mechanistically explain the formation of operationally defined 'humic substances' also led to their definition as synthesis products without the link to the alkaline extraction. 
:Greater aromaticity compared to whole soil
:Historic interpretation = ‘Humification’ creates polyaromatic molecules. 
:Evidence-based interpretation = Not all alkaline extracts are enriched in aromatics; pyrogenic carbon and microbial metabolites (not waste products) create aromatic-rich alkaline extracts
:More nitrogen heterocycles compared to whole soil
:Historic interpretation = Heterocyclic nitrogen is a product of proposed ‘humification’ reactions 
:Evidence-based interpretation = Analytical artefacts during quantification; pyrogenic nitrogen is heterocyclic and alkali extractable 
:Glass transition behaviour (a phase change requiring some level of molecular order) 
:Historic interpretation = Formation of large polymers 
:Evidence-based interpretation = Common for some known biomolecules and pyrogenic carbon
This criticism of humification theory affects several articles including humic acid, and humin. The criticism related to this article is that humus, as defined, does not exist in soil. -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is rated as "start class", and therefore it is lacking a lot of information. To add the proposed criticism section to such an article has no much meaning, as it criticizes something that is in great part absent from the article.--Auró (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that opinion is supported by others, I can certainly userfy the criticism section until the article is sufficiently improved. However, please consider that 1) humification redirects to this page, and 2) The humification section is half the article. I added the criticism section to maintain WP:NPOV which "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Proportionality seems to fit with what you are asking. I will pare back the wordiness accordingly. -- Paleorthid (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Paleorthid I agree with your argument, and accept that more opinions are needed to support or otherwise my petition. If these opinions are lacking, I leave it to your judgment. Any way, this has reminded me, and hope others, that this article needs some work for expansion.--Auró (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am looking for an opportunity to convert the section to a much less intrusive parenthetical mention, much the way User:Richard Keatinge accomplished with this edit at dark earth. -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would encourage you to go ahead and do that; the Criticism section in  its current form doesn't make sense (and nor does the material you have quoted here in Talk). Is it being claimed that humus doesn't exist? Or that there is no sound evidence for its existence? If it does exist, and if it is not present in 'unprocessed' organic matter, then presumably there must be some process going on that 'humifies' unprocessed organic matter. What else could 'humification' refer to, than that process? MrDemeanour (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Humus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121128125005/http://www4.uwsp.edu:80/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/soil_systems/soil_development_soil_properties.html to http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/soil_systems/soil_development_soil_properties.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 18:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: THESE TERms seem to be missing from wikipedia and yet they appear fundanetal for soil development understanding re humus. Also the article contains a statement saying humus is an unproven theory akin to pseudoscience. Perhaps this could be better written to explain that long processess cannot just be observed but must be evidenced?
 here is a suitable short and understandable link for a source on this http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/maps/Biodiversity_Atlas/download/14.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.29 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  mull moder mor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Humus. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130608071757/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Abiotic_factor?topic=49461 to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Abiotic_factor?topic=49461
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just fixed a link in the Humification/Stability subsection; the link pointed to 'Soil Carbon', not to 'Blue Carbon'. But it then becomes clear that 'blue carbon' is not a type of soil carbon at all; it is carbon fixed in oceans (I didn't think there were any kinds of carbon that were actually blue!). So I am now going to change the text to read (and link to) 'Soil Carbon'. 
The passage is cited to an academic article on 'Amazonian Dark Earths', which I do not have access to; but I suspect it does not support the claim that blue carbon is involved in soil carbon (or in amazonian dark earths). Revert unhesitatingly if I am in error! MrDemeanour (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Carbon