Forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years

From the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center blog:

“The chief culprit appears to be climate change, more specifically, the rising levels of atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and longer growing seasons.”

This jibes well with what NASA has been seeing globally via satellite measurements:

Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause

And what has been found by the University of Wisconsin in Madison:

Greenhouse gas carbon dioxide ramps up aspen growth

Here’s the full report from the Smithsonian:

Forests are growing faster, climate change appears to driving accelerated growth

Speed is not a word typically associated with trees; they can take centuries to grow. However, a new study to be published the week of Feb. 1 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found evidence that forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years. The study offers a rare look at how an ecosystem is responding to climate change.

SERC woods during wintertime

Liriodendron tulipifera, or tulip poplar, is a common tree in the temperate forests surrounding the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Other species include sweetgum, American beech, and southern red oak. Photo: Kirsten Bauer.

For more than 20 years forest ecologist Geoffrey Parker has tracked the growth of 55 stands of mixed hardwood forest plots in Maryland. The plots range in size, and some are as large as 2 acres. Parker’s research is based at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 26 miles east of the nation’s capital.

Parker’s tree censuses have revealed that the forest is packing on weight at a much faster rate than expected. He and Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute postdoctoral fellow Sean McMahon discovered that, on average, the forest is growing an additional 2 tons per acre annually. That is the equivalent of a tree with a diameter of 2 feet sprouting up over a year.

Parker measuring a tree.Forest ecologist Jess Parker began his tree censuses his first day on the job: September 8, 1987. Photo: Kirsten Bauer.

Forests and their soils store the majority of the Earth’s terrestrial carbon stock. Small changes in their growth rate can have significant ramifications in weather patterns, nutrient cycles, climate change and biodiversity. Exactly how these systems will be affected remains to be studied.

Parker and McMahon’s paper focuses on the drivers of the accelerated tree growth. The chief culprit appears to be climate change, more specifically, the rising levels of atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and longer growing seasons.

Assessing how a forest is changing is no easy task. Forest ecologists know that the trees they study will most likely outlive them. One way they compensate for this is by creating a “chronosequence”—a series of forests plots of the same type that are at different developmental stages. At SERC, Parker meticulously tracks the growth of trees in stands that range from 5 to 225 years old. This allowed Parker and McMahon to verify that there was accelerated growth in forest stands young and old. More than 90% of the stands grew two to four times faster than predicted from the baseline chronosequence.

Two trees tagged with a metal band and an orange ribbon.Parker, his colleagues and a team of citizen scientists have tagged more than 20,000 trees at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Photo: Kirsten Bauer.

By grouping the forest stands by age, McMahon and Parker were also able to determine that the faster growth is a recent phenomenon. If the forest stands had been growing this quickly their entire lives, they would be much larger than they are.

Parker estimates that among himself, his colleague Dawn Miller and a cadre of citizen scientists, they have taken a quarter of a million measurements over the years. Parker began his tree census work Sept. 8, 1987—his first day on the job. He measures all trees that are 2 centimeters or more in diameter. He also identifies the species, marks the tree’s coordinates and notes if it is dead or alive.

By knowing the species and diameter, McMahon is able to calculate the biomass of a tree. He specializes in the data-analysis side of forest ecology. “Walking in the woods helps, but so does looking at the numbers,” said McMahon. He analyzed Parker’s tree censuses but was hungry for more data.

Parker holding the diameter tape he uses to measure the trees.Parker uses diameter tape or ‘d-tape’ to measure the trees. The tape is calibrated to convert the tree’s circumference, the measurement used to determine a tree’s biomass. Photo: Kirsten Bauer.

It was not enough to document the faster growth rate; Parker and McMahon wanted to know why it might be happening. “We made a list of reasons these forests could be growing faster and then ruled half of them out,” said Parker. The ones that remained included increased temperature, a longer growing season and increased levels of atmospheric CO2.

During the past 22 years CO2 levels at SERC have risen 12%, the mean temperature has increased by nearly three-tenths of a degree and the growing season has lengthened by 7.8 days. The trees now have more CO2 and an extra week to put on weight. Parker and McMahon suggest that a combination of these three factors has caused the forest’s accelerated biomass gain.

Ecosystem responses are one of the major uncertainties in predicting the effects of climate change. Parker thinks there is every reason to believe his study sites are representative of the Eastern deciduous forest, the regional ecosystem that surrounds many of the population centers on the East Coast. He and McMahon hope other forest ecologists will examine data from their own tree censuses to help determine how widespread the phenomenon is.

These findings are also important for policymakers trying to address climate change. Future carbon cap-and-trade rules will need to quantify the amount of carbon forests hold. If faster growth rates prove the norm, this could affect the formulas and the dollar value assigned to forests that are cut or conserved.

Parker and McMahon don’t expect SERC’s forest to continue growing at this accelerated rate forever. Some day the growth rate will level off. When that happens, they wonder how that will affect CO2 levels. If trees are sponges that absorb CO2, what will happen to CO2 levels in the atmosphere when the trees become saturated? It’s a question for further exploration. In the meantime, Parker will continue walking through the SERC woods, tape measure in hand carefully tracking the growth of the trees.

PNAS will make the study available online sometime this week at this link: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912376107.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
173 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce
February 2, 2010 1:29 pm

“the mean temperature has increased by nearly three-tenths of a degree ”
UHI. SERC is about 10-12 miles from Baltimore and Washington DC.

February 2, 2010 1:31 pm

Trees become saturated? Let’s see, if that happens they die, fall to the ground and new trees sprout up… Can we all sing “Circle of Life” now?

Jean Parisot
February 2, 2010 1:32 pm

Anyone with allergies or knowledge of Claritin sales should be able to attest to this.

Van Grungy
February 2, 2010 1:32 pm

Vegans of the world rejoice!!!
Climate Change is good for granola crunchers!!!

Lance
February 2, 2010 1:34 pm

“The chief culprit appears to be climate change, more specifically, the rising levels of atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and longer growing seasons.”
Culprit?
Since when is faster tree growth a crime or misdeed perpetrated by a “culprit”.

jack morrow
February 2, 2010 1:34 pm

So, his little grove is growing faster than usual, so it has to be globable warming caused by man and soon disaster will strike when the trees become saturated with co2. It is always the same with liberals and these types-worried about something and the disasters ahead. They need what one commenter said in a previous post;”They need a wee dram of scotch and relax”.
Well, Parker will continue walking through the woods with his tape measure and his head up his….

Allen Cichanski
February 2, 2010 1:35 pm

Could someone explain to me why more extensive and healthier forests are a bad thing? Given all the climategate stuff we now know, why is anyone with a single functioning brain cell still worrying about “climate change” or carbon dioxide as a pollutant? Its plant food guys and the plants are responding to a better diet.

Steve Goddard
February 2, 2010 1:35 pm

In 2009, the US had the third coldest October on record after having the 36th coolest April on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=4&submitted=Get+Report
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report
How does that translate to a lengthening growing season?

geo
February 2, 2010 1:35 pm

Umm, then why is there a “divergence problem”?

geo
February 2, 2010 1:36 pm

. . .requiring that some people need to “hide the decline”?

jack morrow
February 2, 2010 1:36 pm

OOps Global

Jeremy
February 2, 2010 1:37 pm

Quick! We must act to stop the unchecked overgrowth of the Appalachians! We must have the EPA classify CO2 as a pollutant and ban it’s release into the atmosphere so that everyone on the east coast doesn’t end up paying thousands more per year in gardening costs!!
/sarcasm

February 2, 2010 1:38 pm

From the article: The chief culprit appears to be climate change, more specifically, the rising levels of atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and longer growing seasons.
Rising levels of C02: check
Higher Temperatures: check
Longer Growing Season: check

JDN
February 2, 2010 1:38 pm

The east coast has been relatively warm for the last decade because of local weather. Compare tree growth in the upper plains that have had a more typical growing season. I’ll bet they show marginal change.

Tom G(ologist)
February 2, 2010 1:40 pm

Seems to contradict the idea that man-made CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, doesn’t it?

CodeTech
February 2, 2010 1:41 pm

Which leaves me wondering two things:
1. How is this bad?
2. How is this any different from what “we” have been saying: CO2 rises, biomass takes it out, thus eliminating the ridiculous concept of a “tipping point”.
CO2 is plant food. This is hardly “new science”.

Ray
February 2, 2010 1:42 pm

“When that happens, they wonder how that will affect CO2 levels. If trees are sponges that absorb CO2, what will happen to CO2 levels in the atmosphere when the trees become saturated? It’s a question for further exploration.”
They should come and visit the West Coast… trees can grow quite big if given enough nutrients, water and CO2. Also, a great deal of that “stored” carbon falls every fall… with the leaves!!!
Of course, as they stated, they need more time and money to study this more… typical!
Tree growth is a sure good example of positive CO2 feedback.

b.poli
February 2, 2010 1:42 pm

And – what about the “hidden” decline of M. Mann’s tree rings? How was that possible? What happened there?

JonesII
February 2, 2010 1:45 pm

Why not to create special recreation camps with lots of green and put into them all these mad greenies?, of course conveniently medicated to avoid their brain temperature to increase. There we could also install a train for JH et al.. That will be cheaper than Cap&Trade, so the rest of us could return to the glorious years of development and richness, and live joyful, peaceful and productive lives.

Ray
February 2, 2010 1:45 pm

Wait a minute… (small spark in my head)… if the trees grow better and are healthier with more carbon dioxide and warmer weather, then our crops and vegetables will also grow better….. Oh crap… it also means that if we try to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and it gets colder, then we will all starve to death.

Robert L
February 2, 2010 1:47 pm

Stephen,
They are throwing him under the bus!
R

joe
February 2, 2010 1:48 pm

What bunch of crap. CO2 is the main reason why plant growth has accelerated. This article is trying to link accelerated plant growth(symptom of higher CO2) as proof of global warming.

February 2, 2010 1:51 pm

Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere helps plants and trees grow faster?
Wow.
Who’d a thunk it?

artwest
February 2, 2010 1:52 pm

Stephan (13:34:28) :
can’t believe it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails
—————————
Monbiot’s tactic seems to be similar to fighting gangrene: to hack out obvious diseased flesh – Jones and the hapless PR suit at CRU in this instance – while insisting that the rest of the body of AGW can survive.
Looks like he’ll keep on hacking off bits and insisting that AGW is healthy as long as there is still a wriggling amoeba-sized blob of AGW left.

1 2 3 7