How do you determine what is 'good' and what is 'bad' (worst) though? I know you talk about negative and positive perhaps more intended as directions, but even that has an undertone of 'preference'.
For example we see increasing soil porosity as 'good' (aeration) and decreasing as 'bad' (compaction) but what if the latter increases nitrogen leaching, therefore it then becomes 'bad' in that context? But to a tap rooted plant, it becomes 'good' because it might access more? We expand to include 3 factors - porosity, nitrogen, root architecture - and multiple directions emerge. So there is no 'right direction' in this sense? I imagine the direction we look at it might also change our interpretation - root architecture, nitrogen, porosity... - plus whether it is additive or subtractive.
Have you considered whether they reverse because our interpretation of 'good' and 'bad' is atomic rather than holistic? As you consider more (or less) factors, is this effect what you are seeing? Or even trying to see it in binary terms is why its surprising? If we assume that systems tend towards organisation rather than chaos or vice versa, how does that change our interpretation of 'good' and 'bad'? And what a system does to 'get better' or 'get worse'?
Perhaps getting into the philosophical but I do think we need to be careful interpreting what 'better' or 'worst' is.
Thanks for writing; I absolutely agree. This is a tricky point to discuss. Positive effects (even for something like plant biomass - not applicable in this particular study) do not equate with desirable. And negative effect sizes may not necessarily be bad, like for pH.
And, what's more, if there is a response that is beneficial for one parameter, it may not be so for another. We have seen this repeatedly for just microplastic.
Nevertheless, when we look at soil quality indicators and overall multi-functionality, what is good and bad should be more clear and less of a source of confusion.
How do you determine what is 'good' and what is 'bad' (worst) though? I know you talk about negative and positive perhaps more intended as directions, but even that has an undertone of 'preference'.
For example we see increasing soil porosity as 'good' (aeration) and decreasing as 'bad' (compaction) but what if the latter increases nitrogen leaching, therefore it then becomes 'bad' in that context? But to a tap rooted plant, it becomes 'good' because it might access more? We expand to include 3 factors - porosity, nitrogen, root architecture - and multiple directions emerge. So there is no 'right direction' in this sense? I imagine the direction we look at it might also change our interpretation - root architecture, nitrogen, porosity... - plus whether it is additive or subtractive.
Have you considered whether they reverse because our interpretation of 'good' and 'bad' is atomic rather than holistic? As you consider more (or less) factors, is this effect what you are seeing? Or even trying to see it in binary terms is why its surprising? If we assume that systems tend towards organisation rather than chaos or vice versa, how does that change our interpretation of 'good' and 'bad'? And what a system does to 'get better' or 'get worse'?
Perhaps getting into the philosophical but I do think we need to be careful interpreting what 'better' or 'worst' is.
Look forward to reading the paper - Annette
Thanks for writing; I absolutely agree. This is a tricky point to discuss. Positive effects (even for something like plant biomass - not applicable in this particular study) do not equate with desirable. And negative effect sizes may not necessarily be bad, like for pH.
And, what's more, if there is a response that is beneficial for one parameter, it may not be so for another. We have seen this repeatedly for just microplastic.
Nevertheless, when we look at soil quality indicators and overall multi-functionality, what is good and bad should be more clear and less of a source of confusion.
Hope you find the paper interesting.
Thanks very much!! :)
Yes, I keep thinking about this "keystone interactor" thing....