> How much underwear decomposed was strongly linked to how many nutrients and how much organic material were in the soil. // Burying cotton underwear proved to be a simple, easy-to-use way to get a first impression of soil biological activity that anyone can try with a comparable pair of cotton briefs
A very simple question: why not directly using cotton fabric cuts?
Because cotton underwear is arguably the right answer:
"Buy this item made out of this material, bury two of them in the ground" requires no further cutting or measuring, and most people would have to go to the store to buy a cut of cotton fabric anyway.
This particular clothing item also contains a more resistant skeleton of fibers against which to compare when the test material is heavily decomposed. This is how the "10 point decomposition scale" functions, and a single cotton square would not facilitate that.
Finally, it's novel, which entices potential participants to complete the survey.
The photos in the team's actual paper (linked in OA) are hilarious and lovely - real pride there. Citizen science projects have educational value as well as the data.
there's also the comparative usage: if you personally go buy a 10 pack and bury each item at equal depth in different locations in your yard then you can find the spot that decomposes cotton underwear fastest. This is a good enough proxy for soil activity.
It's trivially easy to bury like-sized cuts of cotton (an old dress shirt would source several), while cotton underpants will vary in fiber content (none are 100% cotton today; they have elastic bands), size, and possibly mercerization.
>while cotton underpants will vary in fiber content
So can old shirts, but those are bigger and harder to bury straight up and down.
Yes, the data will be slightly noisier, but for that cost you get the benefit of actually making it more likely you'll even get data in the first place.
Also, the very notion that agriculture depends on underpants for studying soil, is - while entertaining - rubbish nonsense. For decomposition studies you typically use thorough material with consistent dimensions etc... like a rectangle of, say, 10cm x10cm, but even that is rarely done. This here really seems fake research.
Researchers are careful to note that the Underpants Index most strongly reflects soil fertility, meaning nutrient availability, rather than soil health in the fullest sense. A soil loaded with nutrients will break down cotton fast, but that does not automatically mean the soil is in good ecological condition. In natural ecosystems like meadows or forests, very high nutrient levels often signal human disturbance, not health, and can drive out rare plant species.
To me, this is a more interesting finding than Lawn=Bad, Garden=Good. Natural ecosystems should not have exceedingly high nutrients, which may benefit invasive plants. It sounds similar to algae blooms in ponds caused by fertilizer runoff.
17 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 15.9 ms ] threadA very simple question: why not directly using cotton fabric cuts?
"Buy this item made out of this material, bury two of them in the ground" requires no further cutting or measuring, and most people would have to go to the store to buy a cut of cotton fabric anyway.
This particular clothing item also contains a more resistant skeleton of fibers against which to compare when the test material is heavily decomposed. This is how the "10 point decomposition scale" functions, and a single cotton square would not facilitate that.
Finally, it's novel, which entices potential participants to complete the survey.
It's trivially easy to bury like-sized cuts of cotton (an old dress shirt would source several), while cotton underpants will vary in fiber content (none are 100% cotton today; they have elastic bands), size, and possibly mercerization.
So can old shirts, but those are bigger and harder to bury straight up and down.
Yes, the data will be slightly noisier, but for that cost you get the benefit of actually making it more likely you'll even get data in the first place.
Also, the very notion that agriculture depends on underpants for studying soil, is - while entertaining - rubbish nonsense. For decomposition studies you typically use thorough material with consistent dimensions etc... like a rectangle of, say, 10cm x10cm, but even that is rarely done. This here really seems fake research.
Step 1: Collect underpants Step 2: ????? Step 3: Proft!
So he's joking that these guys have figured out the step 2 finally, so the gnomes can profit from collecting underpants.
https://youtu.be/WpnM37A4P_8?si=SSRvgD4yvhAcdh0e