SpeesCees
Well-Known Member
Getting this document out in the open took me a lot off trouble (3 trips to Russia)
It was stored in a space off 6x4x2.5 meters full off documents that had to be stored “digital” at one time.
That this never happened had everything to do with the lack off money to pay the wages and computers.
The location off the storage space was under the bibliotheca off the University at Orenburg in Russia.
Finding out only that took 2 years.
The point is that at conventions they always referred to this document…..but could never been shown.
I thank the director off the University at Orenburg, the ministry off agriculture at Orenburg and my translator Inessa.
The translation to English was done by the only official translation agency in Orenburg.
The official Russian copies are also in my hands.
For the people who know this material this answers the question if ground plants are capable to take up co2 by the roots.
And thereby this mater is scientifically proven and thereby a fact.
YES….A GROUNDPLANT CAN TAKE UP CO2 BY THE ROOTS VERY EASELY!
===============================================
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR
1954. Vol. 97, No 5
PHISIOLOGY OF PLANTS
E.G. Grinfeld
ON THE NUTRITION OF PLANTS WITH CARBON DIOXIDE
THROUGH THE ROOTS
Recently the soviet scientists have proved that plants absorb carbonic acid through the roots as well. Kursanov A.L. et al (1-3) proved by carbon radiation that carbonic acid taken up from the soil is rapidly transferred into the green parts of the plants and assimilated into carbohydrates by the leaves (photosynthesis); the amount of carbonic acid taken in by the roots is rather great. Other scientists (6,7) claim the same. Working upon various plants, Samokhvalov G.K. (6) proved, that carbonic acid nutrition increases the yielding capacity of plants.
Improvement of carbonic acid nutrition increases the rate of photosynthesis. Nichiporovitch A.A. (5) suggests, that increasing rate of photosynthesis can boost the ratio of useful parts weight of the plant to the leaf area, meaning that a unit of leaf area can produce more plastic substances stored in the crops of useful parts (fruits, roots, tubers etc.)
The field experiments (1953), when sugar beet was fed with carbonic acid (soil was fertilised with carbonic acid nutrition during the vegetation period) suggests the high efficiency of this method. The experiment was carried in Latvian weather conditions, with podzolized rendzina soil. The test was performed 4 times on a standard strain of sugar beet, U-752, on 50 sq. m. plots, with machine sowing and meeting the necessary agricultural conditions of the plant growing.
The work was performed against the background of basic and row mineral fertilisers and two 120 kg per hectare dosings of N, P2O5 and K2O. The basic fertiliser was applied in spring, in back set. The nutrition was introduced in variants, into furrows along the rows, twice in the vegetation period. For CO2 nutrition dry ammonium carbonate was applied together with other mineral fertilisers. During the first nutrition (June, 4-5) carbonate was applied in 30 kg CO2/ha, during the second (June, 27) – 50 kg/ha. In the nil treatment sample ammonium nitrate was applied in relation to the nitrogen, introduced with ammonium carbonate. The total amount of nitrogen and other fertilisers in the variants (as well as the care after the plants) was the same.
During the vegetation, the plant growth and sugar content in the roots were tested by polirimetric method in dynamics, selecting 10 plants at a time. The tests showed, that the plants, receiving carbonic fertilisers, had smaller leaf area in comparison with the rest plants (Table 1):
Click to enlarge
Still the plants possessed the higher efficiency index (Table 2):
Click to enlarge
The data of economic parameters increase, given in Table 2,
shows, that CO2 nutrition increases the root weight, gain rate and sugar content, but under these conditions the absolute and relative amount of leaves is reduced. It suggests of intensive photosynthesis in assimilation ability in the plants, that received CO2 nutrition in comparison with nil treatment sample, providing the larger root weight, but the smaller leaf area (Table 1) and leaves weight (Table 2). It increased the assimilation apparatus efficiency (Table 3).
Reference to Table 3 shows, that the leaf area unit of the plants, receiving CO2 nutrition, accounts for larger root weight, than in the nil treatment sample. It was not observed only on the initial stage, probably due to the young age of plants and smaller leaf area, that prevented them from utilizing all the additional carbonic acid, though they assimilated it, as the carbon content in leaves suggests (Table 4). The carbon content was defined by the Turin-Lukashik’s method in middle samples of leaves gathered in the morning (9-12 a.m.), fixed with stream and dried until air-dry condition.
Table 3:
Click to enlarge
Table 4:
Click to enlarge
Reference table 4 shows, that carbon content in the plants receiving CO2 nutrition, is 7-9% higher than in the nil treatment samples, that indicates the better conditions of organic substances synthesis. Only on June, 9 the carbon excess is 30%, probably due to the fact, that the sample included young leaves only (there have been no old ones yet). All the following tests included mainly old leaves, depending on their amount on the plant. The carbon content was checked in leaves as well as in the roots by the same method (Table 5):
Table 5:
Click to enlarge
Reference to Table 5 shows that the CO2 nutrition has increased the carbon content in roots as well. The noted increase of leaves photosynthesis influenced the sugar beet crops per hectare (Table 6), (the crops were harvested on October 7-9, 1953).
Reference to Table 6 shows, that carbonates nutrition has increased the root crops by 16.2 % (85 centres per hectare) and sugar yield by 14.5% (12 centres per hectare) in comparison with the leaves amount and sugar content practically the same as in nil treatment samples. But together with root crops growth, the weight of the crops has significantly reduced during the vegetation period.
As a result of CO2 nutrition, the photosynthetic rate of the plants has increased (as demonstrated by the relation of root weight to leaves weight), the assimilation apparatus area has reduced as well as the leaves weight, while daily average root gain has increased.
The noted changes of the sugar beet growth dynamics are of particular importance in Latvia, where the leaf area growth and its efficiency in increasing for the whole period of vegetation, being a favourable condition for carbonic acid application, which boost the photosynthesis process.
Thus, the results, received in the 1st year of experiments make it possible to suggest, that carbon nutrition may become an important factor of the sugar beet (and, probably, of other plants) crops growth and can be regulated as well as other nutrition conditions (N, P, K etc).
Table 6:
Click to enlarge
Presented on March 29, 1954
References:
*1: Kursanov A.L. , Krukova N.N. , Vartapenan B.V. ,
Dokladi Akademii Nauk SSSR, 85, #4 (1952)
*2: Kursanov A.L. , Kuzin A.M. , Mamul J.V. ,
Dokladi Akademii Nauk SSSR, 79, #4 (1951)
*3: Kuzin A.M. , Merenova V.I. , Mamul J.V. ,
Dokladi Akademii Nauk SSSR, 85, #3 (1952)
*4: Lukashik N.A. TSHA report, 10 (1049)
*5: Nicjiporovich A.A. “Breeding and seed forming”, #2 (1953)
*6: Samokhvalov G.K.
It was stored in a space off 6x4x2.5 meters full off documents that had to be stored “digital” at one time.
That this never happened had everything to do with the lack off money to pay the wages and computers.
The location off the storage space was under the bibliotheca off the University at Orenburg in Russia.
Finding out only that took 2 years.
The point is that at conventions they always referred to this document…..but could never been shown.
I thank the director off the University at Orenburg, the ministry off agriculture at Orenburg and my translator Inessa.
The translation to English was done by the only official translation agency in Orenburg.
The official Russian copies are also in my hands.
For the people who know this material this answers the question if ground plants are capable to take up co2 by the roots.
And thereby this mater is scientifically proven and thereby a fact.
YES….A GROUNDPLANT CAN TAKE UP CO2 BY THE ROOTS VERY EASELY!
===============================================
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR
1954. Vol. 97, No 5
PHISIOLOGY OF PLANTS
E.G. Grinfeld
ON THE NUTRITION OF PLANTS WITH CARBON DIOXIDE
THROUGH THE ROOTS
Recently the soviet scientists have proved that plants absorb carbonic acid through the roots as well. Kursanov A.L. et al (1-3) proved by carbon radiation that carbonic acid taken up from the soil is rapidly transferred into the green parts of the plants and assimilated into carbohydrates by the leaves (photosynthesis); the amount of carbonic acid taken in by the roots is rather great. Other scientists (6,7) claim the same. Working upon various plants, Samokhvalov G.K. (6) proved, that carbonic acid nutrition increases the yielding capacity of plants.
Improvement of carbonic acid nutrition increases the rate of photosynthesis. Nichiporovitch A.A. (5) suggests, that increasing rate of photosynthesis can boost the ratio of useful parts weight of the plant to the leaf area, meaning that a unit of leaf area can produce more plastic substances stored in the crops of useful parts (fruits, roots, tubers etc.)
The field experiments (1953), when sugar beet was fed with carbonic acid (soil was fertilised with carbonic acid nutrition during the vegetation period) suggests the high efficiency of this method. The experiment was carried in Latvian weather conditions, with podzolized rendzina soil. The test was performed 4 times on a standard strain of sugar beet, U-752, on 50 sq. m. plots, with machine sowing and meeting the necessary agricultural conditions of the plant growing.
The work was performed against the background of basic and row mineral fertilisers and two 120 kg per hectare dosings of N, P2O5 and K2O. The basic fertiliser was applied in spring, in back set. The nutrition was introduced in variants, into furrows along the rows, twice in the vegetation period. For CO2 nutrition dry ammonium carbonate was applied together with other mineral fertilisers. During the first nutrition (June, 4-5) carbonate was applied in 30 kg CO2/ha, during the second (June, 27) – 50 kg/ha. In the nil treatment sample ammonium nitrate was applied in relation to the nitrogen, introduced with ammonium carbonate. The total amount of nitrogen and other fertilisers in the variants (as well as the care after the plants) was the same.
During the vegetation, the plant growth and sugar content in the roots were tested by polirimetric method in dynamics, selecting 10 plants at a time. The tests showed, that the plants, receiving carbonic fertilisers, had smaller leaf area in comparison with the rest plants (Table 1):
Click to enlarge
Still the plants possessed the higher efficiency index (Table 2):
Click to enlarge
The data of economic parameters increase, given in Table 2,
shows, that CO2 nutrition increases the root weight, gain rate and sugar content, but under these conditions the absolute and relative amount of leaves is reduced. It suggests of intensive photosynthesis in assimilation ability in the plants, that received CO2 nutrition in comparison with nil treatment sample, providing the larger root weight, but the smaller leaf area (Table 1) and leaves weight (Table 2). It increased the assimilation apparatus efficiency (Table 3).
Reference to Table 3 shows, that the leaf area unit of the plants, receiving CO2 nutrition, accounts for larger root weight, than in the nil treatment sample. It was not observed only on the initial stage, probably due to the young age of plants and smaller leaf area, that prevented them from utilizing all the additional carbonic acid, though they assimilated it, as the carbon content in leaves suggests (Table 4). The carbon content was defined by the Turin-Lukashik’s method in middle samples of leaves gathered in the morning (9-12 a.m.), fixed with stream and dried until air-dry condition.
Table 3:
Click to enlarge
Table 4:
Click to enlarge
Reference table 4 shows, that carbon content in the plants receiving CO2 nutrition, is 7-9% higher than in the nil treatment samples, that indicates the better conditions of organic substances synthesis. Only on June, 9 the carbon excess is 30%, probably due to the fact, that the sample included young leaves only (there have been no old ones yet). All the following tests included mainly old leaves, depending on their amount on the plant. The carbon content was checked in leaves as well as in the roots by the same method (Table 5):
Table 5:
Click to enlarge
Reference to Table 5 shows that the CO2 nutrition has increased the carbon content in roots as well. The noted increase of leaves photosynthesis influenced the sugar beet crops per hectare (Table 6), (the crops were harvested on October 7-9, 1953).
Reference to Table 6 shows, that carbonates nutrition has increased the root crops by 16.2 % (85 centres per hectare) and sugar yield by 14.5% (12 centres per hectare) in comparison with the leaves amount and sugar content practically the same as in nil treatment samples. But together with root crops growth, the weight of the crops has significantly reduced during the vegetation period.
As a result of CO2 nutrition, the photosynthetic rate of the plants has increased (as demonstrated by the relation of root weight to leaves weight), the assimilation apparatus area has reduced as well as the leaves weight, while daily average root gain has increased.
The noted changes of the sugar beet growth dynamics are of particular importance in Latvia, where the leaf area growth and its efficiency in increasing for the whole period of vegetation, being a favourable condition for carbonic acid application, which boost the photosynthesis process.
Thus, the results, received in the 1st year of experiments make it possible to suggest, that carbon nutrition may become an important factor of the sugar beet (and, probably, of other plants) crops growth and can be regulated as well as other nutrition conditions (N, P, K etc).
Table 6:
Click to enlarge
Presented on March 29, 1954
References:
*1: Kursanov A.L. , Krukova N.N. , Vartapenan B.V. ,
Dokladi Akademii Nauk SSSR, 85, #4 (1952)
*2: Kursanov A.L. , Kuzin A.M. , Mamul J.V. ,
Dokladi Akademii Nauk SSSR, 79, #4 (1951)
*3: Kuzin A.M. , Merenova V.I. , Mamul J.V. ,
Dokladi Akademii Nauk SSSR, 85, #3 (1952)
*4: Lukashik N.A. TSHA report, 10 (1049)
*5: Nicjiporovich A.A. “Breeding and seed forming”, #2 (1953)
*6: Samokhvalov G.K.
