Don't feel bad. I work on heritability, but that is the only term in the figure I understand. The others are paper-specific jargon, so the figure does not stand alone.

If you read the original work, you find that the Anthropocene articles makes some significant claims that are not supported by the research. It is unfortutate when people just try to dump on organic because they don't like it. We know that happens, but scientists need to be less gullible.

I have found the same. My X account has only about 10% of the activity it once had, but those users are very engaged in the practices I post about. My focus on cover crops minimizes the toxicity. I want to be part of the practitioner conversation.

I used to hear that about NY as well. Finance outpaces ag even more than in Georgia. We figure it is biggest by land area.

You can visit the US national apple collection every year at the open house in mid-September at the germplasm repository in Geneva NY. Hundreds of accessions to see, smell and taste. Some are pretty wild.
Of course, the staff is furloughed since Oct 1 until a Federal budget passes.

& Harvest removal

How much annual N&P does it take to maintain primary productivity in excess of respiration in this system?

I wish articles with general interst like this had abstracts written without the obscuring and unnecessary scientese. To me, a fellow scientist, the report is less persuasive when researchers do that.

I am confused by the same point. It is a very weird assertion.

It would indeed be helpful to understand how your model would work. I'm eager to understand correctly because I have not seen a solution that matches the ideal of its developers. Including our presently dominant mode.

You say that you are depending on that dysfunctional social dynamic to improve the quality of dissemination of scientific progress. The two statements seem irreconcilable to me. Isn't this the kind of engagement with claims that you hope to have?

In the US, science is suffering very badly right now because certain influential people schooled in disruptive innovation are controlling science policy. I consider that a big miss.

Are you familiar with the unmoderated comment sections of articles on various internet outlets? Commenters are not high-minded analysts of the subject matter.

A lot of "disruptive and innovative" is also dead wrong. How do you filter?

Keep an eye on RFK jr. Something similar may be in the works.

That is actually close to the proportion that are able and willing to do the work of getting an undergraduate education. The question is what to do wiht the ~30% who recently were going to college but didn't get much out of it. What is the better path to a good life for them?

"We can see from the external symptoms that there is something scientifically wrong.
The Frozen Method.
The Eternal Surveyor.
The Never Finished.
The Great Man With a Single Hypothesis.
The Little Club of Dependents.
The Vendetta.
The All-Encompassing Theory Which Can Never Be Falsified."

"Unfortunately, I think, there are other areas of science today that are sick by comparison, because they have forgotten the necessity for alternative hypotheses and disproof." John Platt 1964 Science 146:348

Weeds? Getting the onion seedlings to grow ahead of the weeds--even with herbicide--is difficult in the best of circumstances.