In article ,
"Eigenvector" wrote:

I was thinking about this as I dug up the winter weeds in my garden. My
soil is riddled with rocks, rocks of various shapes, sizes, and
construction. Nothing too obnoxious, I rid myself of the boulders long ago,
but kept the walnut sized ones.

But I was thinking, I wonder how important those rocks are to my garden. Do
the flowers and herbs use them to anchor themselves to the ground, do the
rocks give off the important minerals that the plant needs or does the soil
alone supply that, without surface rocks will the spiders have less places
to live. Do the rocks provide that last shred of moisture to the roots
during dry times

Question, for those who have done this for a long long time, do you find
that soil that is essentially just dirt that plants grow better or worse
than in soil that is natural and rocky but still of good quality?

In "Collapse", Jared Diamond relates that rock provide nutrients. Soil
that has geologically fresh volcanic ash, rocks left by glaciers, and
rocks exposed by up welling of land masses, add nutrients to the soil.
Jared Diamond points out that part of the reason that northern Australia
is impoverished is that it contains the world's oldest rocks that date
back 4 billion years. The result is that most of the nutrients for
plants have been leached out of them. Even more rain wouldn't be
sufficient to ameliorate its' soil. Where as these geological events
have happened in south-west, and south-east Australia and up into
Queensland. As a result, these are Australia's agricultural zones.

"Collapse" looks at a number of societies that failed and why they
failed and a number of different societies that succeeded and why they
succeeded. It should be at your library and isn't a difficult read at
all. The chapter on Australia is particularly informative.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush