Here’s something you don’t see everyday: a university sending out a press release showing the potential benefits on crop yields of elevated atmospheric CO2 levels. – Anthony
Public release date: 9-Feb-2009
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/uoia-hcb020609.php
Contact: Diana Yates
217-333-5802
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
High CO2 boosts plant respiration, potentially affecting climate and crops
The leaves of soybeans grown at the elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels predicted for the year 2050 respire more than those grown under current atmospheric conditions, researchers report, a finding that will help fine-tune climate models and could point to increased crop yields as CO2 levels rise. The study, from researchers at the University of Illinois and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Plants draw CO2 from the atmosphere and make sugars through the process of photosynthesis. But they also release some CO2 during respiration as they use the sugars to generate energy for self-maintenance and growth. How elevated CO2 affects plant respiration will therefore influence future food supplies and the extent to which plants can capture CO2 from the air and store it as carbon in their tissues. While there is broad agreement that higher atmospheric CO2 levels stimulate photosynthesis in C3 plants, such as soybean, no such consensus exists on how rising CO2 levels will affect plant respiration.
IMAGE: Andrew Leakey and assistants at work in the Soy FACE facility at Illinois. Click here for more information.
“There’s been a great deal of controversy about how plant respiration responds to elevated CO2,” said U. of I. plant biology professor Andrew Leakey, who led the study. “Some summary studies suggest it will go down by 18 percent, some suggest it won’t change, and some suggest it will increase as much as 11 percent.” Understanding how the respiratory pathway responds when plants are grown at elevated CO2 is key to reducing this uncertainty, Leakey said.
His team used microarrays, a genomic tool that can detect changes in the activity of thousands of genes at a time, to learn which genes in the high CO2 plants were being switched on at higher or lower levels than those of the soybeans grown at current CO2 levels. Rather than assessing plants grown in chambers in a greenhouse, as most studies have done, Leakey’s team made use of the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (Soy FACE) facility at Illinois. This open-air research lab can expose a soybean field to a variety of atmospheric CO2 levels – without isolating the plants from other environmental influences, such as rainfall, sunlight and insects. Some of the plants were exposed to atmospheric CO2 levels of 550 parts per million (ppm), the level predicted for the year 2050 if current trends continue. These were compared to plants grown at ambient CO2 levels (380 ppm).
The results were striking. At least 90 different genes coding the majority of enzymes in the cascade of chemical reactions that govern respiration were switched on (expressed) at higher levels in the soybeans grown at high CO2 levels. This explained how the plants were able to use the increased supply of sugars from stimulated photosynthesis under high CO2 conditions to produce energy, Leakey said. The rate of respiration increased 37 percent at the elevated CO2 levels. The enhanced respiration is likely to support greater transport of sugars from leaves to other growing parts of the plant, including the seeds, Leakey said. “The expression of over 600 genes was altered by elevated CO2 in total, which will help us to understand how the response is regulated and also hopefully produce crops that will perform better in the future,” he said.
IMAGE: Illinois plant biology professor Andrew Leakey led a team that discovered that soybean leaves speed up their metabolism in response to rising CO2. Click here for more information.
###
Frosted Flakes?? Shredded Wheat?? Coco Puffs?? Corn Pops?? Thank goodness. I love my Corn Pops.
“…atmospheric CO2 levels of 550 parts per million (ppm), the level predicted for the year 2050 if current trends continue.”
Is this really true? They must not know the earth is cooling and co2 is returning to the oceans.
I Googled “greenhouse CO2 enrichment”
As you may know, Google first looks for all the words, then some of the words, then any of the words. The result was 55,000 plus references.
A careful review of the data presented showed 440 articles were actually about “greenhouse CO2 enrichment.”
So, there may be evidence that CO2 has some beneficial value.
Worked as surveyor in Sussex greenhouses 20 years ago for Dutch firm. We built large piston engine generators (can’t remember size) running on natural gas, produced electricity for the grid, hot exhaust gasses scrubbed for unsuitables, remaining WARM Co2 blown into greenhouses. Tomatoes loved it.
Or is this a process that takes a much longer time,
It should be rapid. From 1 year to say 200 years depending on the lifespan of the plant (ie one generation).
then we should soon start to see a leveling off of the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 shouldn’t we?
Not necessarily. What will happen is the biosphere will takeup a progressively larger amount of human released CO2.
and if so how long would it be before the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 start levelling off to a sustained level.
It depends on how much CO2 humans release in the future. If current CO2 emissions stay stable then my guess would be somewhere between 10 and a hundred years.
Sod,
I may not be quick witted enough to catch your sarcasm, but in case you are serious, I would suggest you look at http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/c4plantbiom.php and other available studies. Not all studies have been indoors; it is possible to be outdoors and feed higher CO2 concentrations to plants. To be sure, we have had a green revolution in agriculture, boosting yields by providential amounts; however, conservatively, 15% of current yields are due to the increase in CO2 levels in the last hundred years.
And the same reason plants tend to do well when talked to up close. They’re getting extra CO2.
Way OT, but is there any chance of getting Leif to comment on the new paper by de Jager and Duhau expecting decades of global cooling from the action of the sun.
With the particular machine and browser that I am presently using I can’t read the comments on this page, but I wonder if anyone has commented upon the fact that just as CO2 fertilizes plants on land, so does it in the ocean, too. As CO2 rises, the mechanisms in the ocean that fix the CO2 and virtually permanently sequester it from the carbon cycle will be stimulated, shortening the time any anthropogenic CO2 stays in the atmosphere.
====================================================================
The twisty light bulbs give off plenty of light. Been using them for years. Unless you’re buying the really cheap off brands….
sod (04:19:09) :
different plants react differently to raised CO2.
different plants react differently to raised CO2 under different conditions.
plants react differently in the open than under indoor conditions.
Correct. C3 cereals, legumes, roots and tubers respond most favorably, with vegetables a close second, and fruits and melons responding about half as much. As temperatures increase, the growth enhancing effect of C02 is enhanced even further. Unfortunately, as temperature decrease, so does the enhancing effect of raised C02, and with anything below a daily mean of 18.5C (65.3F) an increased C02 level actually decreases plant growth, according to a study by climate physicist Sherwood Idso.
in short, the effect of CO2 increase on food production is a MINOR one.
Huh? So, to you, different effects = MINOR? We’ve seen an overall increase of 15% in plant growth with the some 100 ppm increase in C02, with some foods such as C3 cereals (wheat, etc.), legumes, and roots/tubers benefiting considerably more than that. I certainly wouldn’t call that “minor”.
ps: adding a tiny amount of CO2 in a greenhouse is just one of the MANY weird things they do there. i doubt that anyone will claim, that it is a major part of their success..
Typically, they boost C02 amounts to 1000 ppm in greenhouses, and that, to you is “tiny”? You need a new dictionary.
“Ed Zuiderwijk (21:50:34) :
They use schrubbed industrial flue gasses with elevated CO2 content in the greenhouses in Holland. Produces mighty big juicy tomatoes!”
I did not know that – what an incredibly simple and yet powerful idea. Instead of spending billions researching how we can store CO2 in depleted oil and gas fields – just put some greenhouses next to the power plant and generating power suddenly generates food as well – neat. Why aren’t we doing that?
CO2-phobia has reached new heights (so to speak) in the UK. I believe the government there has gone completely insane.
Anthony, I didn’t know where to post this but it may be of interest. A study possibly linking solar wind speed and ENSO:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/02/speculative-study-linking-solar-wind-speed-and-enso/
CO2science.org has a wealth of plant/CO2 data.
Why the surprise
One study I read last year showed that the earths green cover is say 5% above levels 20/30 years ago ( due to co2?).
It is a fact that co2 is piped from the Tate & Lyle plant in
Wissington Norfolk to the greenhouse of UK’s largest tomato producer where it is released around the plants to increase production.
There are many sites showing the benefit of co2 enhanced crop production.
For example: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#distr
In theory more co2 equals more world green cover hence more co2 is absorbed.
The earth cures itself.
Anyway the latest from the writer of Gaia, James Lovelock, now says that there is nothing we can do. The earth will take the necessary action to counter the effect of 10 billion bodies breathing in its own way. Culling probably.
Yes. I’ve mentioned it numerous times. Some of them want most of the human population gone, and us reverting back to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. They apparently believe life should be short and brutal, yet they aren’t willing to volunteer for it.
Bruce cobb: “Unfortunately, as temperature decrease, so does the enhancing effect of raised C02, and with anything below a daily mean of 18.5C (65.3F) an increased C02 level actually decreases plant growth, according to a study by climate physicist Sherwood Idso. ”
Another reason we need a warmer Earth. Warmer is better.
realitycheck (07:40:29) :
‘“Ed Zuiderwijk (21:50:34) :
They use schrubbed industrial flue gasses with elevated CO2 content in the greenhouses in Holland. Produces mighty big juicy tomatoes!”
I did not know that – what an incredibly simple and yet powerful idea. Instead of spending billions researching how we can store CO2 in depleted oil and gas fields – just put some greenhouses next to the power plant and generating power suddenly generates food as well – neat. Why aren’t we doing that?’
This is one of the things being done in one test phase of algae biofuel. Although biofuels have problems, the idea of using vertical algae tanks located in and around fossil fuel based power plants seems like a good idea. The generated power becomes nearly carbon free and the algae has many uses including diesel oil. It’s far superior to corn, soy and other sources.
The carbon eventually makes it to the atmosphere but only after being used twice, significantly reducing the amount released per unit of energy produced.
Don’t get me wrong. Algae is not a single solution to energy needs. However, if used intelligently it could useful.
Gary (05:59:30) :
Respiration in plants is not the same as with animals. In fact, it is just the opposite. Plants take in CO2 & release O2.
Ken Hall (06:04:26) : “If this is indeed the case and plants can switch on a gene that allows greater uptake of CO2 when the level is correct, then we should soon start to see a leveling off of the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 shouldn’t we?”
Not necessarily.
Herbaceous plants primarily store carbon below ground. In order for it to remain there, the ground must be left undisturbed. With todays agricultural practices most of the ground is tilled which releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. Therefore, the increased uptake makes no difference.
REPLY: I’m a little unclear on your idea that tilling releases carbon back into the atmosphere. Can you elaborate? – Anthony
We’re unlikely to see 1000 ppm CO2. We have burned fuel or otherwise reduced vegetation representing about half of our recoverable fossil fuel reserves, which has raised atmospheric CO2 from around 280 ppm to the current 380 ppm. The carbon age is likely to end around 500-550 ppm CO2. The Oil Drum has a nice analysis on this.
Gary says:
So, what is driving that increase in respiration? Why would plants increase their respiration in the presence of increased CO2?
Can you explain that a little more? I would have thought that it really isn’t too surprising that CO2 levels are going up when respiration is increasing.
Indeed, I would have thought that photosynthesis, which creates carbohydrates during the day by using CO2, was making it possible for respiration both during the day and night.
Perhaps I have this wrong, and if so, I imagine I will be corrected.
As usual the law of unintended consequences operates in respect of soy. Fermentation is essential to render soya harmless to humans, but it is not a step taken by western food processing companies. Most people remain unaware that soy is known to contain an array of potent chemical toxins.
Extract:
The trouble with modern soy products is that fast industrial processing does not equate to historical methods of fermenting “for two summers” or boiling “for the length of an incense”. The method of modern get-rich-quick corporations is simply to leave these well-known natural toxins in our products.
It seems NZers are ahead of us all. http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/
Perry
Here is an interesting talk by Nobel winner Kary Mullis, speaking at TED, on scientific experiment. At about the 21:00 mark he lays into the IPCC and refers to papers that he claims refute the greenhouse capture effect. The papers are Here and Here.
UAH MSU
1-2009: +0.30 °C.
sod (04:19:09) :
different plants react differently to raised CO2.
different plants react differently to raised CO2 under different conditions.
plants react differently in the open than under indoor conditions.
in short, the effect of CO2 increase on food production is a MINOR one.
Foolishness, indeed.
tmtisfree (04:32:53) :
Bill McClure (02:21:16) :
“Nice to see research related to CO2 that doesn’t have the typical global warming disclamer.”
Indeed. But the study states in this conclusion:
Although the effects of elevated [CO2] on photosynthesis are well represented in models, the simulation of respiration has been hampered by our poor understanding of the mechanisms of response. This is an important source of uncertainty in models of plant carbon balance and crop yield (3), and ecosystem carbon balance and the global carbon cycle (7). At the leaf and plant scales, stimulated respiration at elevated [CO2] will reduce net carbon balance. However, it is possible that enhanced respiration could facilate increased yield, by providing greater energy for export of photoassimilate from source leaves to sink tissues. Because leaf respiration is between 1/3 and half of global autotrophic respiration [20–30 PgCy-1 (6)], if many other species respond similarly to soybean, greater respiration at elevated [CO2] could offset the stimulation of photosynthesis and net primary productivity significantly.
That is the obligatory deference to AGW, and absolute hogwash.
Some background information from a soybean physiologist:
1. In the best years, soybeans abort or shed 50% or greater of flowers. They abort much greater if temps raise above 95F during R2-R8. Flower/pod abscission is significantly reduced, and indeed the main benefit to enhanced CO2 greenhouse yields in soybeans.
2. The soybean seed is approximately 40% protein.
3. The soybean and corn genomes are the best studied because of development of “roundup ready” genetically modified varieties. Only reason soybeans were selected.
4. Corn is C4, soybeans C3. C4 plants don’t respond as well to increased CO2 because the CO2 incorporation apparatus is compartmentalized. Therefore a C3 plant with well understood genes was required for this study. Ergo-soybeans.
5. The yield limiting factor(s) in soybean is the affinity of Rubisco for CO2 and the production of proteins for seed storage. From the paper (paraphrased): There were few differences in the abundance of transcripts encoding components of the RNA transcription of protein synthesis machinery.
6. Recently isolated soybean varieties with one pod/plant having 4 beans versus three beans increased yields by approximately 1 bu/acre. This was a BIG deal.
7. Increasing nitrogen assimilation in soybeans only increases yield 7% (Enhancing soybean nodulation in soybeans with exogenously applied flavonoids – Master’s thesis-me)
Summation
The only relevant finding in this paper is this: This meant that respiratory quotient (co2 uptake/o2 uptake) was 7% greater at elevated CO2, and the authors associated this with increased synthesis of carbohydrate metabolism transcripts and more mitochondria and mitochondrial transcripts. Its just a genetic study, very analogous to computer modeling in climatology. No yields were taken. I did bunches of these in growth chambers. The biggest fly in the ointment regards the proficiency of CO@ur momisugly fumigation, which casts serious questions concerning actual CO2 concentration between plots. Same problem with field experiments on CO2 effect on temperature. Oh yeah, there are none.
Increased yields from CO2 enhancement is most significant in plants with a low N/C ratio-C-3 cereals (grasses).