Sometimes I wonder if science hasn’t been infected with some sort of mass delusion about CO2. Watch this amazing video on CO2 and plant growth from CO2Science.org, then read below the claims made in this UC Davis press release.
Rising CO2 levels threaten crops and food quality
Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide interfere with plants’ ability to convert nitrate into protein and could threaten food quality, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis.
The scientists suggest that, as global climate change intensifies, it will be critical for farmers to carefully manage nitrogen fertilization in order to prevent losses in crop productivity and quality.
The study, which examined the impact of increased carbon dioxide levels on wheat and the mustard plant Arabidopsis, will be published in the May 14 issue of the journal Science.
“Our findings suggest that scientists cannot examine the response of crops to global climate change simply in terms of rising carbon dioxide levels or higher temperatures,” said lead author Arnold Bloom, a professor in UC Davis’ Department of Plant Sciences.
“Instead, we must consider shifts in plant nitrogen use that will alter food quality and even pest control, as lower protein levels in plants will force both people and pests to consume more plant material to meet their nutritional requirements,” Bloom said.
Climate change, CO2 and agriculture
Historical records have documented that the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased by 39 percent since 1800. If current projections hold true, the concentration will increase by an additional 40 to 140 percent by the end of the century.
This trend is of concern to agriculture because elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been shown to decrease the rates of photorespiration, the naturally occurring chemical process that combines oxygen with carbohydrates in plants.
At first, this reduction in photorespiration boosts photosynthesis, the complementary process by which plants grow by using sunlight to turn water and carbohydrates into chemical energy in the form of plant sugars. In time, however, the increase in the rate of photosynthesis tapers off as the plants adjust to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, and plant growth slows.
The nitrogen connection
Nitrogen is the mineral element that plants and other living organisms require in the greatest quantity to survive and grow. Plants obtain most of their nitrogen from the soil and, in the moderate climates of the United States, absorb most of it through their roots in the form of nitrate. In plant tissues, those compounds are assimilated into organic nitrogen compounds, which have a major influence on the plant’s growth and productivity.
Earlier research has shown that when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase by 50 percent, the nitrogen status of plants declines significantly.
More specifically, findings from previous research by Bloom and colleagues suggested that elevated levels of carbon dioxide decreased photorespiration and inhibited nitrate assimilation in plant shoots.
New UC Davis study
In their most recent study, Bloom’s team examined the influence of elevated carbon dioxide levels and, in some cases, low atmospheric oxygen concentrations, on nitrate assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis plants using five different methods.
Data from all five methods confirm that elevated levels of carbon dioxide inhibit nitrate assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis plants. The researchers note that this effect could explain why earlier studies by other researchers have documented a 7.4-percent to 11-percent decrease in wheat grain protein and a 20-percent decrease in total Arabidopsis protein under elevated carbon dioxide levels.
“This indicates that as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise and nitrate assimilation in plant tissues diminishes, crops will become depleted in organic nitrogen compounds, including protein, and food quality will suffer,” Bloom said. “Increasing nitrogen fertilization might compensate for slower nitrate assimilation rates, but this might not be economically or environmentally feasible.”
He noted that farmers might be able to increase their use of nitrogen-rich ammonium fertilizers to ease the bottleneck of nitrate assimilation in crops but would have to carefully manage fertilizer applications to avoid toxic accumulations of ammonium in the plants.
To develop solutions for dealing with the impact of major increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on crops, further research is needed on how plants assimilate nitrate and ammonium, Bloom said.
Working with Bloom on this study were Martin Burger of UC Davis’ Department of Land, Air and Water Resource; Jose Salvador Rubio Asensio of UC Davis’ Department of Plant Sciences; and Asaph B. Cousins, currently of the School of Biological Sciences at Washington State University.
Funding for this study was provided by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Spain’s Agencia Regional de Ciencia y Tecnologia.
About UC Davis
For more than 100 years, UC Davis has engaged in teaching, research and public service that matter to California and transform the world. Located close to the state capital, UC Davis has 32,000 students, an annual research budget that exceeds $600 million, a comprehensive health system and 13 specialized research centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and more than 100 undergraduate majors in four colleges — Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Biological Sciences, Engineering, and Letters and Science. It also houses six professional schools — Education, Law, Management, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and the Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing.
Media contact(s):
- Arnold Bloom, Plant Sciences, (530) 752-1743, ajbloom@ucdavis.edu (He is away from campus until Wednesday but can be reached by e-mail.)
- Pat Bailey, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9843, pjbailey@ucdavis.edu
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It must be Grant Forcing. Where do they get their grants from?
Lisa Jackson?
How does this fit with the tomato growers in the Netherlands who put added CO2, up to 1500ppm I have read, into the greenhouses and get better yields?
I thought every study to date showed plants grew faster/better with more carbon dioxide in the air. In other words, the evil gas is a natural fertiliser – presumably this has been ignored in this study.
Off topic: here comes another whitewash:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10112136.stm
plants grow by using sunlight to turn water and carbohydrates into chemical energy in the form of plant sugars
Really? Where do they get the carbohydrates from?
It’s not that carbon dioxide is harmful to the plants but more that carbon dialectics are harmful.
It is unfortunate that there are so few numbers in this press release and those that do exist, provide no real data. The authors would like us to believe that protein content can be reduced in certain plants by “doubling CO2”. From what baseline concentration isn’t stated. This report is an example of headline-seeking behavior, not provision of information or better yet, data. Such a press release should be ignored.
“Historical records have documented that the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased by 39 percent since 1800.”
“If current projections hold true, the concentration will increase by an additional 40 to 140 percent by the end of the century”
So let’s get this straight, if CO2 levels were the norm in 1800, the rising of CO2 levels to todays +40% CO2 should already be interfering with plants’ ability to convert nitrate into protein and food quality should already be threatened. Is that the case?
This is just more delusional science.
Obviously they don’t read the multitude of controlled CO2 trials results from papers reviewed in CO2Science on a regular basis. They would have saved a lot of money, but oh wait! the conclusions are different!
In 1978, a CO2 blowout happened during oil exploration in Naihai County, Guangdong, China. Around the well, CO2 concentration was 3 times higher than in normal air. Both rice and wheat production increased for 3 years around the well. It was reported in newspaper of that time and you can even find here if you can read chinese:
http://rywen.net/view/186846
“Historical records have documented that the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased by 39 percent since 1800”
So where’s the nitrogen deficiency right now?
“Earlier research has shown that when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase by 50 percent, the nitrogen status of plants declines significantly.”
50 percent more than what?
“Data from all five methods confirm that elevated levels of carbon dioxide inhibit nitrate assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis plants”
How much is an “elevated level”?
I hope the article isn’t as vague as the press release.
oldseadog says: (May 14, 2010 at 12:20 am) How does this fit with the tomato growers in the Netherlands who put added CO2, up to 1500ppm I have read, into the greenhouses and get better yields?
It probably fits well, because the research here does not seem to dispute “bigger” but does question “better”. We need to know the comparative nutritional values between the with and the without tomatoes before making a judgement on this basis. oldseadog.
oldseadog
May 14, 2010 at 12:20 am
Presumably they didn’t check tomatoes, and apparently anything other than wheat and mustard? I guess the first is a logical choice, but which breed(s)?
OK,
I would very much like to see responses to this post.
UCD is next door and I have a number of direct contacts. However, I would rather engage on the science about this CO2 / Nitrogen connection.
Thoughts?
I have visited greenhouses on Jersey growing enormous heavely laden tomato plants. And strawberry plants banked up, and filling the greenhouses with large fruit. Achieved by adding CO2. This was many years ago, when the concerns were all about feeding the world, and prospects of mass starvation. It left me with much hope for the future. The people of the world could be saved, I thought by greenhouses and CO2.
….But then, what would I know?
Just what we always knew – CO2 is plant food! A quick Google gives some other examples:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6808988/Dutch-aubergine-grower-pipes-carbon-dioxide-into-greenhouses.html
http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/bright_ideas/growing_tomatoes/
If increased CO2 increases plant growth and increases yield (but soil nitrogen is not changed) then one would expect a higher yield with lower protein.
Of course they will have this covered. Wont they?
I found it!
“Further research is needed..”
When nothing else makes sense, look for the pitch for more funding.
No details of how the experiments were performed in this press release. If they used single plants growing in a closed chamber then the results are meaningless. I recall seeing a reference in the past to dramatic lowering of CO2 concentrations in the center of a cornfield and googling this topic resulted in the following interesting reference:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=agronomyfacpub
which, on page 18 of the PDF (page 132 of the original document) has a graph of measured CO2 2 m above a cornfield and one sees drops of 30 ppm in CO2 concentration in the 3 minute record that is shown. It would be very interesting to see what happened when one gets a day with very little wind. This CO2 lowering effect of plant communities is probably why we see such dramatic increases in plant growth and crop yields with atmospheric CO2 increases. In plant communities, especially ones made up of rapid growing plants, CO2 concentration is a rate limiting step for growth. Incidentally, the reference above is from 1969 and one would think that plant physiologists would be aware of this literature.
This, in posh parlance, is what we in the UK call purloining the micturation. Worse, they are doing it at our expense.
Sorry to repeat myself but these people call themselves SCIENTISTS?
“To develop solutions for dealing with the impact of major increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on crops, further research is needed on how plants assimilate nitrate and ammonium, Bloom said.”
…Got that?
“Further research is needed”.
Translation:
Oh! My God, the “Global Warming” money is running out!!! Quick! Put out another hysterical press release about increasing threats of mass destruction caused by the increase in man-made CO2 emissions!
Never mind the facts, just get it out there now!!!
I was going to respond in the vulgar form. However, being an Englishman & Brit, & a reasonable gentleman, I merely suggest that this paper sounds to me like a complete load of small round things usually found in mens trousers! (Fellow Brits know the term well!) Was there any scientific study actually done at all other than blowing bubbles in their beer to remove the CO2? Straws & clutching spring to mind.
A bit like the old joke about the three uni profs & the monkey! I won’t go any further – perhaps one day!
And another thing, the wheat we grow today bears little resemblance to the wheat we grew a century ago.
Today’s plants are much shorter with a bigger ear of seed, resulting in much higher yields. In other words, evolution and genetics will solve the problem – if indeed there is a problem.
oldseadog says:
May 14, 2010 at 12:20 am
‘How does this fit with the tomato growers in the Netherlands who put added CO2, up to 1500ppm I have read, into the greenhouses and get better yields?’
But, it’s a lower quality yield. LOL
I’d sure like to see someone reproduce this work. They’ve released their complete methods and data?
Love the music.
This is absurd, the kind of specious argument you get when someone is grasping at straws, like when the Luddites argue against golden rice because “Well, it won’t save All the children of Asia from blindness,” or “it doesn’t provide All the betacarotene growing children need in their diets.”
With any crop, whichever input (sunlight, water, soil elements, CO2) is in shortest supply limits the growth of the plants. By curing the shortage of trace gas CO2, that moves the next least abundant input, apparently nitrogen compounds, up to number one. That’s a problem akin to having more money than you need, one you can live with.
Here’s my oft posted take on CO2’s effect on Illinois corn production.
http://i29.tinypic.com/120ilbc.jpg