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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Most tree and plant species emerged at times in the geologic past when the atmospheric CO2 was at much higher levels than the present. The recent levels of CO2 were close to starvation levels for many of them. No foreseeable level of CO2 increase is apt to approach saturation, if that is even possible. Refer to the high levels of CO2 enhancement employed by commercial greenhouses.
There was a paper last year which suggested accelerated growth would lead to depletion of soil nutrients, but that was contradicted by work done by scientists at the same institution as the paper’ authors. I can’t find the link right now, but I think it was Woods Hole.
wucash (14:23:26) :
This just in: The pope’s Catholic
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Gets my vote for Quote Of The Week!
Quick… get Mann and Briffa out there – tree rings to die for! No need to hide the decline!
CO2 makes trees. Trees make tree rings. Tree rings make hockey sticks. Hockey sticks make bad science. Bad science means no CO2. No CO2 means no trees.
Why do AGW wackos hate trees?
Is this some kind of a Federal scheme to take control of states’ uses of their own natural resources? Is that where this is going?
How much is lumber going to cost if states loose funds or have to pay for the lost carbon sink when they cut timber? I suppose it will cost as much as the Feds want it to cost.
The growth observed at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center is a direct cause of all the hot air and excess CO2 those politicians just West from there, in Washington, DC. It’s not because of UHI but more about PPE (Political Pollution Effect).
So what else is new? I have quite a few acres of forest in N.E. MS, and can see it happening year on year. Keeping it from taking over the couple acres of lawn, veggie garden, and decorative plantings I have around the house is a full time job.
And guess what? The trees I harvest, that don’t get used for furniture or other woodworking, get burned.
He only measures diameter and checks species, and ignores height?
That does not work, ask any logger.
This is from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carboniferous/carboniferous.html
“The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 354 to 290 million years ago during the late Paleozoic Era. The term “Carboniferous” comes from England, in reference to the rich deposits of coal that occur there. These deposits of coal occur throughout northern Europe, Asia, and midwestern and eastern North America. In addition to having the ideal conditions for the beginnings ofcoal, several major biological, geological, and climatic events occurred during this time. One of the greatest evolutionary innovations of the Carboniferous was the amniote egg, which allowed for the further exploitation of the land by certain tetrapods. The amniote egg allowed the ancestors of birds, mammals, and reptiles to reproduce on land by preventing the desiccation of the embryo inside. There was also a trend towards mild temperatures during theCarboniferous, as evidenced by the decrease in lycopods and large insects and an increase in the number of tree ferns. ”
So CO2 is good for vegetation which sequesters VAST amounts of the stuff and the benign climate (MILD temperatures) advances evolution!
What’s bad about that?
NIWA can’t find the actual thermometer readings and seems unable to explain its adjustments to temperatures.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
I was wrong, it was Oak Ridge NL
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/12/fixing-the-nitrogen-cycle-in-climate-modeling/#more-11642
Funny how nature works. I’m sure all the photosynthesizing autotrophs inhabiting this lovely planet are very happy to use the little extra bit of CO2. Imagine how much CO2 is being rapidly used to create tons of biomass on a global scale….Earth’s capability to sustain life is truly astounding!
Could cleaner air also influence the rate of tree growth? Sunlight would be a bit more intense as certain pollution levels fall, especially those that create haze.
I don’t know the data for the Maryland forests, but nationwide, from 1980-2007, EPA data shows national ambient pollution level fell dramatically:
Carbon Monoxide down 76%,
Ozone (VOC precursor) down 21%,
Lead down 91%,
Nitrogen Dioxide down 43%,
Particulates (PM10) down 28%,
Fine Particulates down 14%,
Sulfur Dioxide down 68%.
These numbers are from a chart on page 22 of the Pacific Research Institute’s latest Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. PDF here: http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090414_Env_Index_09.pdf
also from the NAS site:
Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes
source: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20348.full?sid=b283a84e-425f-479c-bebc-be883c9752c6
Abstract
“Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) at 3 sites in western North America near the upper elevation limit of tree growth showed ring growth in the second half of the 20th century that was greater than during any other 50-year period in the last 3,700 years. The accelerated growth is suggestive of an environmental change unprecedented in millennia. The high growth is not overestimated because of standardization techniques, and it is unlikely that it is a result of a change in tree growth form or that it is predominantly caused by CO2 fertilization. The growth surge has occurred only in a limited elevational band within ≈150 m of upper treeline, regardless of treeline elevation. Both an independent proxy record of temperature and high-elevation meteorological temperature data are positively and significantly correlated with upper-treeline ring width both before and during the high-growth interval. Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites.”
OT: Lucia tries to make reasonable suggestions for AGW supporters in promoting their views, but the moonbats come out of the woodwork.
Robert (14:44:13) said:
Yep, I think they are CO2 constrained, and thus the whole biosphere is CO2 constrained.
It will be interesting to see how the warmers turn this into a bad thing.
That’s all well and good. Remember that the study seems to have covered the period of a positive PDO, which would of course see warmer temperatures and a longer growing season on average. Let the study go on for another generation and see what happens under cooler conditions. If the evidence of increased growth continues while the climate cools and the traditional growing season shortens, then it’s not climate change, it’s just the increased plant food which is CO2. And remember that with increased CO2 levels, growth can occur under more marginal conditions which can mean a longer growing season despite lower temps.
This climate thingy can be full of surprises. Wonder what the growing season will look like with a couple hundred more ppm of CO2 in the future.
We’re all going to die!
I noticed in France how luxuriant tree growth was this year with Autumn lasting well into November.
Now the shadow of the doomsayers is lifting we can actually get back to enjoying life and nature and tackling the real environmental problems in a positive way. The old dead trees will be cut out and replaced with new growth; let them try to stop it.
The Daily Mash: “TREES WILL NOT BECOME UNSTOPPABLE KILLING MACHINES, ADMIT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/trees-will-not-become-unstoppable-killing-machines%2c-admit-climate-scientists-201002022433/
TREES will not uproot themselves and embark on blood-soaked killing sprees by 2035, global warming experts have admitted.
The International Panel on Climate Change confirmed the evidence had not been peer-reviewed and will now amend the section of its 2007 report devoted to ‘killer trees’.
I’m not so sure now!
Anthony!
Doesnt this interview qualify as topsubject? Vaclav Klaus in Copenhagen today??
http://soundcloud.com/crc/vaclav-klaus-in-copenhagen-2-feb-2010
Curious how emotive a simple word can be…. and who, might we ask chose it?
QUOTE:
“The chief culprit appears to be climate change, more specifically, the rising levels of atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and longer growing seasons.”
There’s the word: “Culprit”.
That assumes faster plant growth is a bad thing. As if increased temperatures and increased CO2 causing more prolific cropping of all sorts of plant life, not just trees but food crops also (which is why forcing houses have excess CO2 introduced) is a bad thing for the human race…. so if we had less CO2 and lower temperatures and we are all starving it would be better?
I would dearly like to see scientific reports revert to, or aspire to the use of neutral language bereft of any emotive content. These days when ever i see any emotive language I start to suspect the science may not be as honest as liked. In this case it appears that for an AGW agenda this sort of thing is bad news since it gives the lie to all we have been told about how bad AGW is and hence how better to report good news than load the report with negatives?
“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.”
Wouldn’t seedlings also increase and grow faster, too? In other words, the only thing that would “level off” the growth would be a limit to the area it is allowed to cover until that area is saturated. Even so, if all plants are exhibiting growth rates of some level, isn’t this a good thing for all of us? At least those of us who obtain a level of food source from the planet’s plant life, anyway. These plants aren’t “doing us a favor” by sequestering CO2, they
are, literally, “eating it up”.
Hey, look at these incredible statements by Pachauri to the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers
Entitled “No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy – Head of UN climate change body ‘not at fault’ for false claim Himalaya ice caps would melt by 2035”
He claims that the 2035 ‘error’ “was an isolated mistake, down to human error and “totally out of character” for the panel.”
Yeah, right. Like the authors of the report have admitted that they knew it was a lie. And it had been exposed as a lie years earlier:
for example see http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down/
The Guardian article continues:
-In his Guardian interview, Pachauri defended the IPCC’s use of so-called “grey literature” – sources outside peer-reviewed academic journals, such as reports from campaign groups, companies and student theses. The false Himalayan glacier claim came from a report by the green group WWF. He said reports of further errors in the IPCC report linked to grey literature were spurious and the result of a “factory” of people “only there to create pinpricks and get attention”.
-Stories that claimed errors about losses from natural disasters and Amazon destruction were false, he said. “We looked into that [Amazon claim] and we’re totally satisfied that what’s been stated in the report is totally valid.”
Don’t forget that, chaps – pinpricks, false…IPCC claims totally valid. Wow, is he setting himself up for a fall!