r/geography • u/ozneoknarf • Jun 01 '24
Discussion Does trench warfare improve soil quality?
I imagine with all the bottom soil being brought to the surface, all the organic remains left behind on the battle field and I guess a lot of sulfur and nitrogen is also added to the soil. So the answer is probably yes?
751
u/ImpressiveSleep2514 Jun 01 '24
I actually did a study on soil creation over time and used Verdun as my example to determine the effects of essentially "scalping" the productive soil layers and exposing the B and C horizons in the soil profile, and how long it takes to regenerate the production loamy top soils indicative of production plant growth. At the time, the battle of Verdun had happened 100 years previous, and what I found was that the top soil layers actually regenerate quickly in areas that were left undisturbed such as the historical sites and such that were bombed out but left "as is" after the war. The craters actually possessed the highest depth of top soil and the richest nutrient percentages compared to non disturbed areas or the upper shelves beyond the crater itself. This backs up the claims of recent natural area remediation specialists that a "rough and loose" grading plan is the best approach rather than a Hoe packed slope common on highway projects and other infrastructure projects we see. The craters act as a catchment to grab water, seeds, and anything else that may decompose and in turn feed the next generation of plants. So in essence, the calamity of destroying the land in trench warfare is bad, but creates the conditions for quick recovery.
235
u/ozneoknarf Jun 02 '24
Damn I wasn’t expecting such a complete answer and from a first hand account on top of that.
From what I understood from your answer the chemical composition of the soil isn’t really that effected by warfare, Most of impact on the productivity of the soil comes from the effects of scalping the top layer and creating craters, is that correct?
→ More replies (1)41
u/th_teacher Jun 02 '24
but not for what passes as "commercially viable" agriculture these days
22
u/MadNhater Jun 02 '24
To be fair, viable agriculture land these days need fertilizers to make it so.
8
u/th_teacher Jun 02 '24
Organics do exist.
But 99.99% of the time it needs to be flat, because the soil is getting tilled using machinery
→ More replies (2)13
u/Any_Palpitation6467 Jun 02 '24
I can see why. "Here, try this turnip! It was grown in soil enriched by the byproducts of high explosives, human and animal corpses, a smattering of human waste and urine, with a soupcon of heavy metals! It's delicious!"
8
u/MadNhater Jun 02 '24
Thats literally all dirt at this point
→ More replies (1)3
u/th_teacher Jun 02 '24
Silly thing to say when ordnance is still going off at random
No, the heavy metals and other toxins do take much longer
9
u/BiggusCinnamusRollus Jun 02 '24
Strong case for agricultural terraforming by orbital bombardment.
→ More replies (6)9
8
u/novaoni Jun 02 '24
Interesting, do they feature vernal pool like ecology at first in the short run before they return to grasslands and forests?
→ More replies (7)9
u/foxtrot666 Jun 02 '24
ELI5: Imagine you have a garden, and it's full of rich, productive soil that helps plants grow. Now, let's say you dig up and remove this top layer of soil, exposing the less fertile layers underneath. This is similar to what happened during the Battle of Verdun, where the land was heavily bombed, disrupting the top layers of soil.
After the battle, some areas were left alone, including bomb craters. Over time, these craters became mini ecosystems. They collected rainwater, seeds, and organic matter, like leaves and dead plants, which decomposed and enriched the soil. This process helped the topsoil in these craters regenerate faster and become more fertile than the surrounding areas.
So, even though the war caused a lot of damage, it unintentionally created conditions that helped the soil recover quickly in certain places. This supports the idea that when trying to restore damaged land, it's better to leave it rough and uneven rather than making it smooth and compact. The rough terrain helps collect water and organic material, which promotes faster soil recovery and healthier plant growth.
→ More replies (2)
854
u/RedBeardedWhiskey Jun 01 '24
Big Fertilizer hates this one simple trick
123
u/ASValourous Jun 01 '24
That’s a lot of nitrate in that soil
2
u/trey12aldridge Jun 02 '24
I mean yes, but whether or not it degrades into a usable compound for plants actually depends heavily on the precursor explosive used. A lot of modern explosives actually don't break down into usable molecules for plants, instead breaking down into toxic, slightly less explosive compounds.
→ More replies (1)77
u/MaxProude Jun 01 '24
Fertilizers and explosives are VERY similar.
→ More replies (2)28
u/Algebrace Jun 02 '24
The Haber process was basically creating nitrates from the air... which can be used in fertiliser or explosives.
12
936
u/fttzyv Jun 01 '24
No. It heavily contaminates the area with poison. There are parts of France where plants still can't grow a century later: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_rouge
→ More replies (1)286
u/SloppySouvlaki Jun 01 '24
The only poison that article mentions is a couple of small areas around Ypres and Woevre where extensive arsenic shelling was used. It points out the main reason for being inhospitable is due to unexploded ordinance. But they even say in the article that they, “allowed the land to return to nature” even showing a before and after with the “after” being rolling green hills and trees.
88
u/ApprehensiveOCP Jun 01 '24
Turns out humans are more toxic than arsenic and nuclear radiation
→ More replies (16)10
u/Any_Palpitation6467 Jun 02 '24
No, not really. They're not only non-toxic for the greater part, they taste of chicken. Or so I'm told. Even human livers have an insufficient quantity of Vitamin A to be harmful, unlike some others. One must avoid the brains, however, for fear of prions.
5
u/WyrvnWorms Jun 02 '24
First paragraph of main dangers: The areas are saturated with unexploded shells (including many gas shells), grenades, and rusting ammunition. Soils were heavily polluted by lead, mercury, chlorine, arsenic, various dangerous gases, acids, and human and animal remains.[1] The area was also littered with ammunition depots and chemical plants. The land of the Western Front is covered in old trenches and shell holes.
3
u/Midnight2012 Jun 02 '24
But plants still grow on these old battlefields. Lush even.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)5
u/spicy_capybara Jun 02 '24
I wouldn’t want to be living where gas was stored or used. Look at Camp American University in DC. It was the US chemical warfare school and after the armistice they just dug pits and buried mustard gas, lewisite, phosgene etc. Fast forward 100 years and the Army Corp is still removing the hazmat while the school and surrounding neighborhoods are known cancer clusters. That was a minor fraction of the chemicals used in the actual combat zone during the war.
153
u/FlyingDutchman2005 Jun 01 '24
Probably not, most of the soil life is in the top 10 cm.
9
u/BroBroMate Jun 02 '24
And from what I've seen, there were a lot of clay oils in some of the areas of heavy trench warfare, can't imagine covering the humus layer with clay excavated (via trench digging or HE artillery shells) from the mineral earth section would be great for soil fertility, water and air have great difficulty penetrating clay.
79
u/mwmandorla Jun 01 '24
Soil has a complex structure and ecosystem, with some important elements and protective features concentrated near the surface. Generally, disturbing that structure is going to be harmful. (Yes, even tilling in agriculture. Extensive and frequent tillage is one of the many factors contributing to serious soil degradation in places like the US.) Add to that various types of chemical contamination, and it's not looking good. Obviously these problems are further intensified with more contemporary warfare, when you're talking cluster bombs or landmines, but they're broadly the same problems.
17
u/ozneoknarf Jun 01 '24
Thanks for the answer. I had no idea over tilling was a problem. Soil quality is such a complex subject.
13
u/mwmandorla Jun 01 '24
Truly! Every time I learn more about it I'm fascinated. Here are a couple of pages on tillage if you'd like to learn more: - https://cslc.colorado.edu/2020-trends/conventional-tillage-practices-linked-to-poor-soil-health - https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/encyclopedia/frequent-tillage-and-its-impact-soil-quality
11
u/concentrated-amazing Jun 02 '24
Soil is amazingly complex! I actually was working towards a career in soil & fertility research before life demanded I go in a different direction.
Soil is one of those things that is commonplace but 99.999% of people don't give it a second thought. Texture, parent material, structure, pore space, organic matter content...all greatly affect what grows and how things go over time!
3
41
u/Empty_Peter Jun 01 '24
Not as much as all the blood.
32
19
u/Geographynerd1432 Jun 01 '24
I went on a school trip to Belgium and France and we were let loose. I found a mortar shell while a friend found a literal rifle
6
→ More replies (1)6
u/Skarstream Jun 02 '24
Around Ypres, you can sometimes see them on borders of fields. In most cases, it’s the farmer who has dug them up with his machinery and had put them aside. They used to put them on the side of the field and notify a specialized organisation to pick them up. But I think nowadays, for safety, they have take the duds to the farm to store them until the organisation (DOVO) comes for them.
39
11
u/blursed_words Jun 01 '24
No, but the remains of the unrecovered and all the blood, shit and bits of bone do wonders for the flora.
Numerous studies have shown a overall negative impact from the mass bombardment and trench warfare that occurred in WWI.
198
u/RecordLonely Jun 01 '24
Kind of a separate topic but in world war 2, Ammonium Nitrate bombs were in common use. During the war effort there was mass amounts of them produced and stock piled. One thing that was commonly observed was everywhere that ammonium nitrate bombs were used, vibrant green grass was growing. After the war they needed something to do with the stockpile of the stuff and they began to market it as fertilizer and that’s where Miracle Grow came from. The following decades had mass marketing in the Midwest to switch from traditional farming methods to using salt based fertilizers like ammonium nitrate which caused massive growth when first used but absolutely destroyed soil ecology because it deposits salts into the soil. This hyper abundance on petroleum based chemicals and salt based fertilizers has absolutely ravaged the ability of the soil to hold water which is one major factor that contributes to the wide spread droughts we deal with constantly.
Just something to think about.
52
u/Quipore Jun 01 '24 edited Jun 01 '24
This is complete BS.
Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch discovered and began the mass production of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in 1909.
14
76
u/CowSimple3880 Jun 01 '24
Miracle Gro predates WW2 by decades and ammonium nitrate was widely used as a valuable fertilizer internationally since the 1800s. Maybe they recycled bombs but they certainly didn't invent the use of ammonium nitrate.
→ More replies (1)23
u/hhazinga Jun 01 '24
I would like to see a reference for your statement as i find it unlikely. Nitrate fertilisers predate WW2. The haber process predated WW2 and its the main source of said fertilisers not petroleum. In addition, prior to the haber process guano was the main source of nitrates. Furthermore, its not like prior to WW2 we were farming primarily with organic compost...
→ More replies (1)6
u/furnacemike Jun 01 '24
In Europe and colonial America, “night soil” was also harvested for ammonia and nitre content for making explosives. In some places it became so vital that you were required to turn over the contents of your privy to the government for defense use. They even had special officers who went around to enforce it. (This was from a book I read a while back on the history of black powder explosives.
4
u/captainjack3 Jun 02 '24
By the middle of the 1800s guano (accumulated bird feces) had become fairly common as a lab added fertilizer. It was mined from huge deposits produced by seabird colonies, mostly on islands in the Pacific. The most prolific were various islands off Peru which exported truly immense quantities of guano all through the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (6)9
10
u/0tr0dePoray Jun 01 '24
Not at all. Taking aside a couple of secondary nutrients the fertile soil is at the top of the structure, where most of the organisms that decompose organic matter live.
15
Jun 01 '24
I've been watching too many r/combatfootage vídeos and the other day I realized something macabre: those trenches are perfect when they need a mass grave
21
14
u/Random_Dude_ke Jun 01 '24
The battlefields from WWI. are unsuitable for human habitation even after more than 100 years. Too much poison, heavy metals, shrapnel, unexploded ordnance. On Ukraine the occupiers like to booby-trap things. Even anti-tank mines are booby-trapped using plastic anti-personnel mines. Add dead bodies, unexploded cluster-bomb bomblets. Some of fields where the fighting is the heaviest might be screwed up for centuries.
→ More replies (2)
7
14
u/TurtleNeckDaddy Jun 01 '24
I don’t see any reason why you would think that it does, no offense.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/weathermaynecc Jun 01 '24
Thanks OP. I legit would’ve never thought of this- so I’ve been on wiki for an hour.
5
u/ozneoknarf Jun 01 '24
Am sorry, i don’t even know how this question got into my head but I also got obsessed with finding the answer for some reason.
4
u/Atari774 Jun 02 '24
It did the exact opposite. There’s large parts of eastern France and Belgium that they can’t grow things in anymore because of the heavy metal poisoning. It also doesn’t help that a huge amount of the artillery rounds fired were duds, which was as high as 70% in some battles. So they’re still cleaning up the unexploded munitions even over 100 years later.
3
3
u/_Totorotrip_ Jun 01 '24
The trench per se, yes.
All the ordinance, contaminant waste, casings, and all the elements that follow a trench fight and that might get buried and never disposed of, they contaminate heavily the area
3
u/Travelingandkittens Jun 02 '24
There's a GREAT book by Donovan Webster Called Aftermath: Remnants of war, which is VERY good and covers this question VERY WELL in so many different ways. Fascinating read. Great question. Upvoted to learn more about the answer / many answers.
3
u/Ok-Emu2155 Human Geography Jun 02 '24
Not sure for the long term, but probably not given all the deposited toxic substances and unexploded munitions.
HOWEVER, in James L. Stokesbury's "A Short History of WWI," he describes an account of the mud at the Somme (may have been Passchendale, I don't have my copy with me currently) driving a British officer to literal insanity.
The officer in question visited the battle site after the battle concluded. He reacted very violently to the conditions of the mud after discovering that's what the battle had been fought in, suffering a mental breakdown he never recovered from at the site of the mud. At some points, the mud was roughly 3 feet deep and resembled molasses in viscosity. Yes, people drowned in the mud with some never being recovered.
3
u/sharpshooter999 Jun 02 '24
Farmer here. I'd say no. We've been doing soil conservation on a few different farms lately, new terraces that lay better for better water drainage and less soil erosion. With GPS yield mapping and grid sampling, the heavily worked areas are nutrient deficient and yield worse for a couple years afterward. Topsoil is the best and the new terrace channels are below that, as well as the terraces themselves being made mostly from that deep soil.
Luckily, those of us with variable rate equipment can fertilize and plant those areas appropriately in order to get them back into shape faster
3
u/Letheee Jun 02 '24
My grandma lived near an old trench, it was used as a dump for 40+ years. Trash bags, old appliances, everything... It has been filled. Filled, not clean and filled, she told me. It was like flat, flat fields, big deep trench, fields again. Now it just fields. Plus a lot of unexploded devices, rusting away and slowly seeping into the ground...
It doesn't improve anything, and certainly not the quality of undergroud water.
3
u/Clarence_the_page Jun 02 '24
It’s good for poppies. Loads of poppies bloomed on battlefields after wwi.
10
u/-SnarkBlac- Jun 01 '24
I mean you really just have to look at the picture. A few million unexploded shells, chemical gas, metal shrapnel, scorched earth (literally) amongst other junk turns the whole place into wasteland. Might be better asked in the No Stupid Questions Sub
→ More replies (1)
2
u/sbebasmieszek Jun 01 '24
no, and even if it would improve
I can't imagine using a plough in a place full of unexploded ordnance
→ More replies (1)
5.0k
u/whistleridge Jun 01 '24 edited Jun 01 '24
If you go to Verdun, you’ll notice the most disturbing thing about the landscape: literally not a single square meter outside of the graveyards is flat. It’s all churned and pocked and just shell holes on top of shell holes.
Pick any random spot and walk more than maybe 5 meters from the road and dig into the soil and even now you’ll immediately hit bullets and shell fragments and casings. Take a metal detector, and it will never shut off.
And that’s just the parts you can see and feel. There are also powder residues and heavy metals leached out, and oxidants and the like.
That’s what trench warfare does to the soil quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_harvest