Rising CO2 is causing plants to release less water to the atmosphere, researchers say

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. — As carbon dioxide levels have risen during the last 150 years, the density of pores that allow plants to breathe has dwindled by 34 percent, restricting the amount of water vapor the plants release to the atmosphere, report scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and Utrecht University in the Netherlands in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (now online).
In a separate paper, also to be published by PNAS, many of the same scientists describe a model they devised that predicts doubling today’s carbon dioxide levels will dramatically reduce the amount of water released by plants.
The scientists gathered their data from a diversity of plant species in Florida, including living individuals as well as samples extracted from herbarium collections and peat formations 100 to 150 years old.
“The increase in carbon dioxide by about 100 parts per million has had a profound effect on the number of stomata and, to a lesser extent, the size of the stomata,” said Research Scientist in Biology and Professor Emeritus in Geology David Dilcher, the two papers’ sole American coauthor. “Our analysis of that structural change shows there’s been a huge reduction in the release of water to the atmosphere.”
Most plants use a pore-like structure called stomata (singular: stoma) on the undersides of leaves to absorb carbon dioxide from the air. The carbon dioxide is used to build sugars, which can be used by the plant as energy or for incorporation into the plants’ fibrous cell walls. Stomata also allow plants to “transpire” water, or release water to the atmosphere. Transpiration helps drive the absorption of water at the roots, and also cools the plants in the same way sweating cools mammals.
If there are fewer stomata, or the stomata are closed more of the day, gas exchange will be limited — transpiration included.
“The carbon cycle is important, but so is the water cycle,” Dilcher said. “If transpiration decreases, there may be more moisture in the ground at first, but if there’s less rainfall that may mean there’s less moisture in ground eventually. This is part of the hyrdrogeologic cycle. Land plants are a crucially important part of it.”
Dilcher also said less transpiration may mean the shade of an old oak tree may not be as cool of a respite as it used to be.
![]() |
||||
“When plants transpire they cool,” he said. “So the air around the plants that are transpirating less could be a bit warmer than they have been. But the hydrogeologic cycle is complex. It’s hard to predict how changing one thing will affect other aspects. We would have to see how these things play out.”
While it is well known that long-lived plants can adjust their number of stomata each season depending on growing conditions, little is known about the long-term structural changes in stomata number or size over periods of decades or centuries.
“Our first paper shows connection between temperature, transpiration, and stomata density,” Dilcher said. “The second paper really is about applying what we know to the future.”
That model suggests that a doubling of today’s carbon dioxide levels — from 390 parts per million to 800 ppm — will halve the amount of water lost to the air, concluding in the second paper that “plant adaptation to rising CO2 is currently altering the hydrological cycle and climate and will continue to do so throughout this century.”
Dilcher and his Dutch colleagues say that a drier atmosphere could mean less rainfall and therefore less movement of water through Florida’s watersheds.
The Florida Everglades depend heavily on the slow, steady flow of groundwater from upstate. The siphoning of that water to development has raised questions about the future of the Everglades as a national resource.
Dilcher’s Dutch coauthors for the two papers were Emmy Lammertsma, Hugo de Boer, Stefan Dekker, Andre Lotter, Friederike Wagner-Cremer, and Martin Wassen, all of Utrecht University in Utrecht, Netherlands. The project received support from Utrecht University’s High Potential research program.
To speak with Dilcher, please contact David Bricker, University Communications, at 812-856-9035 or brickerd@indiana.edu. To speak with any of the Dutch coauthors, please contact Emmy Lammertsma, Utrecht University, at 31 (0) 64 137 6175 or e.i.lammertsma@uu.nl.
“Global CO2 rise leads to reduced maximum stomatal conductance in Florida vegetation” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (online), vol./iss. TBD
“Climate forcing due to optimization of maximal leaf conductance in subtropical vegetation under rising CO2” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (online), vol./iss. TBD

And all that water will be lost, forever.
Wouldn’t less water vapor also mean much less greenhouse impact and might this just be a way to link CO2 to colder temperatures now that they realize Earth isn’t warming?
I mean, we have just gone through 20 years of “we are going to cook because of CO2” and now that temperatures are cooling we have this. The logical conclusion, if you buy the study, is “we are going to freeze-dry because of CO2”.
They can’t have it both ways.
One more feedback the models didn’t take into account.
“Dilcher and his Dutch colleagues say that a drier atmosphere could mean less rainfall ”
QED
Isn’t this proof of a negative feedback system – so why don’t they say so!? Less water vapour as a GHG balances out more CO2? Surely now all the other bad effects of CO2 like heating and flooding will be negated?
By the way it takes peat 10 years to form 1cm so they could have gone down more than 15cm to get older evidence surely?
And another thing, how do plants grow bigger with more CO2 if they reduce the gas exchange so they can’t use it?
Selective information output: I need to read the article I grant you, but:
what was the total leaf area compared to number of stomata ?
is low CO2 a selective agent for decreased stomatal function ?
did the epidermal cells change in size ?
is CO2 a selective agent for decreased stomatal function ?
did the researchers try to estimate/compare plant dry weight ?
Previous papers on the same subject do not agree on this.
So? Obviously CO2 has been so short in the atmosphere that plants have had to risk dehydration in order to get enough. As the level rises, the plants need fewer stomata to get enough CO2 for respiration and so can cut down the risk of excessive water loss. Sounds good to me.
A similar finding from Israel shows that less evaporation is of crucial interest for the survival and growth of plants in arid environments:
http://www.jpost.com/GreenIsrael/KKLJNFATUNCLIMATECHANGECONFERENCE/Article.aspx?id=166114
Not directly in the above reference is that the researchers found a reduction of stomata with increased CO2, which helped the trees to reduce their water losses.
It truly sounds as if the involved researchers are trying to find a cesspool instead of a silver lining.
Nutrients could have changed two. BTW I didn’t know 390×2 = 800? I thought it was 780?
I guess this will make the Amazon even more resilient to water concerns then it already is.
This could presumably be corroborated with an empirical investigation conducted in glasshouses, raising or lowering CO2 levels and seeing how the plants respond.
This doesn’t make sense to me. The C02 in the atmosphere contributed by man is said to be so small compared to other sources of CO2 in the environment. If the doubling of a gnats whisker amount ofMMCO2 can cause such changes in plants, then it must cause us to rethink the imnpact on the climate generally. It can’t go both ways, either the MMCO2 is significant or it isn’t. I doubt that the MMCO2 can be the cause of the changes noted by the research, but I don’t see why, if it is true, that it is anything negative against AGW.
This is not news as anyone who reads the co2science web site will tell you. Indreased CO2 reduces a plant’s requirement for water. Can only be good for the planet!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[snip . . OT]
Was it not in the Cambrian Expolosion that most plant/animal/plankton diversity existed, & CO2 was 20 times higher than it is today? Oh, we mustn’t be here then because life all died out because of the CO2, or maybe not?
Anyway, this is only a “puter”model, based on what they think they believe they ought to know they are right about! Still using non-comttal words like “could” & “may”. Just as easily these words can read “could not” & “may not”!
Slightly OT: Recent BBC tv appearance (Tuesday) by maths guru Johnny Ball stated on tv that manmade CO2 content was only 4% of total. My understanding was that this figure was from the IPCC sources & sinks section of their report, can anybody confirm that at all? Namely the 770 Gt or so natrual outgassing as opposed to the 25 Gt or so of manmade outgassing. It is used in the video clip at Climaterealist site presented by a school teacher (very eloquently I must say)!
With climate science there are always new discoveries. These guys and gals are having a field day with their ever changing vegetation discoveries. What next? Yaaaawn!
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Amazon greener in dry season
Amazon not greener in dry season
Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill
What controls water vapour in the air? The oceans or the plants?
It’s well known that if you increase CO2 levels plants are more able to withstand drought and the probable reason is that they transpire less so this is hardly a surprise.
Also their statement:” That model suggests that a doubling of today’s carbon dioxide levels — from 390 parts per million to 800 ppm” is suspect because most data is showing that the Oceans are cooling so more CO2 will be taken up by the Oceans, and the atmospheric levels will not reach 800ppm.
Let’s continue shall we. Less water vapour in the air means less of the most powerfull greenhouse gas called water vapour. I recall that plants also become more drought resistant. These people are tying themselves in knots. Gaia at work?
That’s very interesting, as it would be yet another negative feedback, and considering how much more important water vapor is than CO2, it could even mean the effect of CO2 is cooling.
The paper’s argument about air temperatures is probably not significant, and even if the temperatures are slightly warmer, the air will be drier, and since we are also evaporatively cooled, we’ll probably feel more comfortable.
However, mammals will also be losing water faster, since we don’t have stomata that adapt to CO2 levels. To verify how this will effect animal life I’ve input horse DNA into a multi-billion dollar computer simulation that extrapolates horse behavior from chemical interactions, protein transport, electrical charges, Van der Waals forces, and Brownian motion. My model horse quickly dehydrated, because even though there is increased surface water because of the reduced plant draw from the soil, he simply refuses to drink. I’ve had my underpaid lab assistant double check the code, and he says there’s no way it’s a glitch in a subroutine.
So, taking the average of 350 model runs, I predict a 35% species loss by 2050 and the devastation of agricultural production, causing widespread famine on top of the human deaths due directly to dehydration/drowning caused by lower humidity and increased surface water. I’m sure Science or Nature will publish my results with all possible haste.
[ah yes the old sayings are often the best]
Interesting… I wonder if anyone will try correlating past desertification cycles with CO2 levels? Lowering CO2, if the stomata theory is correct, could increase water needs, and in a borderline environment that could cause desertification.
I know there are other factors at play, but ice ages tend to have low CO2 levels, and desertification on a global scale. If the climate was getting drier while plants were needing more and more water due to CO2 declines, that would contribute to desertification.
By the way the biosphere has been greening over the last few decades.
Biosphere is greening and may get greener over time
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003451/index.html
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/biomass_boosting.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2009/06/090624_greeningdesert1.shtml
As a plant physiologist I find this “new” discovery all profoundly depressing.
The effect of incresed CO2 on stomatal density and evapotranspiration has been known for more than 50 years.
In fact stomatal density has been used as a proxy for past atmospheric CO2 concentrations
(Stomatal density and stomatal index as indicators of paleoatmospheric CO2 concentration)
See http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/RPP.pdf
Why do I not find it surprising that if vegetation covers some 50% of the Earth’s dry land a reduction in evapotranspiration is likely to have a global effect?
I bet this is not factored in GCMs
Why is so much of Climate “Science” reinvention of the wheel?
More negatives:
Biological productivity of the tundra has increased since 1981.
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-0102.1
1982 – 1999
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560
Fungal Co2 uptake forecast to increase.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/21/0912421107.abstract
Do we know that CO2 is the cause of fewer stomata, or could it be something else? People long acclimated to high altitude environments have a different lung morphology than those who live at sea level. Does that mean that either group of people breathe less?