Sciam - cover

From the October 2009 Scientific American Magazine | 17 comments

Readers Respond on "Obama's Science"

Letters to the editor on phosphorus bugs, cats and rats

By The Editors   

 

Loner? Feral cats can be social or solitary, depending on their sources of food.
Dave King Getty Images

e-mail print comment

Tax Dollars at Work
Despite Barack Obama appointing scientists to top posts, I hardly think this qualifies him personally to be named in the “Scientific American 10.” His inclusion pales beside the favor bestowed to the others on the list who have actually done some real work for science and humanity.
Catherine McBride-Bergum
Virginia, Minn.


Although your infatuation with Obama is most likely impervious to facts, I would like to point out that federal R&D spending increased 41 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over the course of the Bush administration. Also, Bush’s spending on embryonic stem cell research, though more restricted than you may have liked, represented a rather substantial increase over the Clinton administration, during which embryo-destructive federal research funds were essentially zero. Scientific American’s praise should be reserved for those who actually perform the hard work of advancing scientific knowledge, not those who merely allocate money they did not earn to researchers they will never meet.
Greg Pitner
Austin, Tex.

Soil Welfare
David A. Vaccari’s “Phosphorus: A Looming Crisis” usefully called attention to the critical role of phosphorus as a plant and crop nutrient and to possible future scarcities and constraints. But his focus on it as a fertilizer neglected its abundance in most soils. There is usually 10, 20, sometimes even 30 times more phosphorus in the soil than the amount in “available” forms that plants can readily utilize. The large amount of unavailable phosphorus is continuously, though relatively slowly, converted into available forms through the activity of soil microorganisms, many of which are known as phosphobacteria.

Without these microorganisms, plants could not have been growing in the earth’s soils for more than 400 million years. Ironically, the use of inorganic fertilizers can suppress roots’ and microorganisms’ production of the phosphatase enzymes that are essential for making phosphorus available for plant use. This inhibition is similar to the way that adding inorganic nitrogen to the soil diminishes the production of nitrogenase by plants and microorganisms to sustain their fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, which becomes available for plant nutrition.
Heavy machinery also compacts the soil and degrades its structure, disturbing the balance of water and air in the soil that supports root growth and soil organisms; further, using mineral fertilizers as a substitute for restoration of soil organic matter diminishes the abundance and diversity of soil microorganism populations.

It is true that under a variety of conditions, applications of phosphorus fertilizer and rock phosphate in particular can be beneficial and cost-effective. But from a sustainable agriculture perspective, more attention should be paid to managing the soil biota along with crops so as to get the most benefit from the latter.
Norman T. Uphoff
Professor of Government and International Agriculture
Cornell University

Gregarious Cats
The Taming of the Cat,” by Carlos A. Driscoll, Juliet Clutton-Brock, Andrew C. Kitchener and Stephen J. O’Brien, is largely unsubstantiated and erroneous with regard to the social behavior of domestic cats. Cats do live in groups if the opportunity is available, and each group has a female matriarch and an alpha male. Feral cats always form groups, which are referred to as colonies, and people who care for numerous cats all report this type of hierarchy. As for the cats being of no particular benefit, the authors should consider what species controls the more than 40 eggs laid by many species of snakes, not to mention rodents, whose only other predators are birds of prey and opossums.
“Gary in Tampa”
via ScientificAmerican.com



Read Comments (17) | Post a comment 1 2 Next >


Share
Propeller    Digg!  Reddit delicious  Fark 
Slashdot    RT @sciam Readers Respond on "Obama's Science"Twitter Review it on NewsTrust 
sharebar end

You Might Also Like


Discuss This Article


Click here to submit your comment.

VIEW:

2,573 characters remaining
 
  Email me when someone responds to this discussion.
 

risk free issuefree gift

Sciam - cover Email:
Name:
Address:
Address 2:
City:
State:  
spacer



World Changing Ideas



Editor's Pick


Newsletter

Basic Science Newsletter

Get weekly coverage delivered to your inbox


 Podcasts

  • 60-Second Science     RSS  · iTunes Botoxed Face Impairs Bad Feelings
    click to enable

    Download

  • 60-Second Science     RSS  · iTunes Distracted Customers' Wait Times Fly
    click to enable

    Download





ADVERTISEMENT
 
 


Also on Scientific American


© 2010 Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
ADVERTISEMENT