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.
Has any one factored in the general reduction in forestry (Green Policy), resulting in increased pollenation potential (Denser communities), better opportunities to seed, less human predation.
Could an increased community density lead to superficial perceptions of increased growth, forest density being misequated with annual growth diameter. More trees does not mean more annual growth of course, possibly just less forestry. I can imagine the media running with a misperception as an environmental fact.
@ur momisugly pat (14:03:09) :
But, Pat, Where is the news about Dr. Pauchari’s new novel? I mean, come on, what’s important here, anyway?
anthony, check the graph and the comments:
BBC: Richard Black Blog: Distorted view through the climate gates
If the scientific case for greenhouse warming crumbles, so be it; but I’d suggest we should beware of assuming it is crumbling simply because a few scientists or a few scientific papers or a few IPCC reviewers have been seen to fall short of the highest standards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/much_has_been_written.html
Phil Jones, scientist in climate data row, promises to be more open
Isn’t this the same bilge Salzer et al. was pushing with the Bristlecones last fall?
To begin with, Maryland would be the last place on earth to look to as a pristine laboratory for hardwood forests, it’s not exactly Sequoia National Park.
Maryland has a massive rural agriculture and chicken production industry with 500,000 tons of nutrients pumped onto the land and into the watersheds and aquifers of the state every year. Not to mention the nitrogen and phosphorous rich chicken manure. Maryland has had massive algae blooms inthe Chesapeake Bay for precisely this reason. Are we to believe all of these nutrient rich effluence of the agricultural and poultry industries, affect only the bays but have no effect in the watersheds and forests of the surrounding countryside.
Biomass is effected by far more than the alleged 6 factors which the author relies on (three of which he listed) What about the level of farming fertilizers in the aquifer and in the local water tables? What could possibly be learned of these tiny trees (relative to the western conifer forests) where growth in the early stages can be overly influenced by non-carbon factors like fire suppression history, species competition, water, sun, north south east west exposure, degree of slant, erosion, natural nutrients, man made nutrients, water table stability as affected by man made infrastructure. etc etc. I would expect young trees with no competition in a nutrient rich environment to excel in growth…like the ones in the picture…maybe even double in size in a short period of time. You need more of the 200 year + trees in Maryland…of which there are few….to really form any opinion and then you have to knock out all competing causes for growth rather than just a few of them.
Junk Science yet again.
“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.
What was ruled out? Think of a tree as a machine to convert CO2 to wood (and leaves and stuff). The raw materials include CO2 and water; the energy supply is sunshine.
So why aren’t water and sunshine changes on the list?
If forests are growing faster, wouldn’t that mean plants that we eat are also growing faster? And what about larger?
I know it has been said already, but shouldn’t we get a round of applause? Now I can say my hummer is doing it’s bit for the environment – I can see the bumper sticker now – “I’m saving the forests! ask me how!”
I wonder if all this co2 has anything to do with this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html?_r=3&hp
50 acres of forest regrowing for every 1 cut down.
Oh whoops I just read the article, apparently it is the wrong “kind” of forest.
Shouldn’t we be accepting of all types of forests, regardless of their composition? Ask the Swiss who just passed that law concerning plants rights – there must be something in there about discrimination…
What’s not stated in the article, is the ages of the trees they’re measuring. A young
stand of trees will grow much faster than a mature stand, everything else being equal.
The devil is in the details.
Longer growing seasons????
I wasn’t aware that CO2 has also cause a shift in the tilt of the earths axis allowing for a more direct sunlight and a longer growing season.
Is there nothing CO2 can’t do?!?!?
Warmer climate from gentle warming from the Little Ice Age – check.
HIgher CO2 – check – it’s plant food.
Longer growing season, a double whammy – first from being slightly warmer, but an even bigger effect is the higher CO2 which widens the trees temperature tolerance range, both lower and higher, and, as an added perk, improves their use of water and nutrients.
In other words, warmer conditions are not required for a longer growing season. Higher CO2 will do this even with unchanged climate.
Cap’n Rusty (16:30:03) :
But it’s sad few people seem to deeply think. If the trees get saturated by proximity to other trees, why in the world isn’t anyone planning to systematically harvest the old trees, sparsely, planting new ones at site, to generate electricity instead of letting forest fires do the job, dumping the CO2 back into the atmosphere with no benefit for mankind. Ashes from furnaces could be spread back to the soil as the cutting is occurring. It’s nearly free, sustainable source, as good as nature. The trees will burn one way or the other.
And by thinning the forests with new trees planted, will maintain the take-up of CO2 over the decades.
Anything wrong with that? Why no thought, no planning? Because there is little money to be made?
I have said for a long time that the very best carbon sink you can have is a regularly logged forest. Grow ’em fast, chop ’em down, slice ’em, chip ’em or pulp ’em, and use ’em. Then grow some more. be careful with soil, though, and leave some fallow time.
Envrionmentalists (sic) seem to think it’s a bad idea. Ho hum.
I hereby claim this as my idea, and demand 1c of ‘Carbon Tax’ for every tree chopped down forever.
Full disclaimer: Not sponsored by the logging industry (big log?), oil, coal, gas or any other industry. I am, however, always open to offers that are deemed mutually acceptable (ie at the right price), of course.
rbroberg (16:20:02) :
I reviewed the paper you link to. It uses information from 10 years ago.
The earth has been cooling for 10 years and growing seasons are getting shorter. That’s the current reality.
Re: Cap’n Rusty (16:30:03)
[But the context of the word “saturated” in the article was “If trees are sponges that absorb CO2, what will happen to CO2 levels in the atmosphere when the trees become saturated?]
Cap’n, there is no such thing as trees being saturated with CO2. That language is that of the blog poster, TinaT, not the researcher, Parker. Trees grow throughout their entire lifetimes and continually absorb CO2, no saturation.
These blog/media articles are really getting on my nerves with their “spin”.
I am looking forward to the PNAS paper this article refers to. Especially concerning the statement:
“Parker’s tree censuses have revealed that the forest is packing on weight at a much faster rate than expected.”
I am curious as to how “expected” was determined. That should be interesting.
Andy Scrase (16:30:21) : “Yes, the ‘other’ [Monbiot] did this shameful ‘cut out and keep’ denier card set.”
No Anthony Watts in that set, despite all the heretics WUWT has created. I picture Anthony standing, fists clenched, glaring at the ceiling and screaming, “What do I have to DO to get on Moonbat’s cards!”
Hmm, only 10 cards with no McIntyre, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, etc. I always suspected Moonbat wasn’t playing with a full deck.
So much for informed discussion on this blog. My comment about 100 comments ago was that you all are jumping to conclusions. The weather on the east coast determines tree growth, last time I checked. This article is more bad science, and, you all are participating.
CO2 is incorporated into plants by the enzyme Rubisco, a notoriously slow enzymatic reaction. However, if plants want more CO2 fixation, they only need to make more of the enzyme or perform other regulatory activities. As far as I know, CO2 concentration is not the rate-limiting step for carbon incorporation under all conditions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO
It is simplistic to assume that increased CO2 always leads to increased carbon fixation, and, I’d like to stop this bandwagon for a second to consider whether this is the right direction to take.
My thoughts exactly. They keep talking “green”, but what they really want is brown, as in brownshirts.
GREAT.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS DOES TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OF SO-CALLED CLEAN, ALL-ELECTRIC HOMES WHEN PEOPLE BURN WOOD FOR HEAT IN THEIR FIREPLACES?
GO FOR A WALK AND YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TAKE A BREATH IF (WHEN THE WIND IS JUST RIGHT, OR PREPARE TO USE A SCOTT AIR-PACK IF IT ISN’T WINDY …)
AIR POLLUTION ON A VERY CLOSE AND PERSONAL LEVEL.
GREAT.
Sorry for all caps, and I don’t blame George E. Smith for this either.
.
.
No, it doesn’t.
JDN (18:24:12):
“This article is more bad science, and, you all are participating.” Well, I notice that JDN is participating, too.
But JDN is not the arbiter of what is bad science. [He may think he is, but the Wikipedia link gave him away.]
In fact, CO2 is the rate-limiting factor in plant growth, as Prof Freeman Dyson points out. Dyson explains that corn completely stops growing within 5 minutes of being deprived of CO2.
And under its “Key Findings,” the University of Illinois found that under treatments simulating the atmospheric conditions of 2050:
More CO2 results in greater agricultural yields. These seedlings were started at the same time, but were given different levels of atmospheric CO2: click
Additional CO2 is beneficial. Adding even more harmless CO2 is very beneficial. That’s something to think about, when food prices are rising fast due to ethanol use — and when one-sixth of the human race lives on one dollar a day or less. Too bad the alarmist crowd doesn’t care about those folks.
Really!!??
This explains a lot; are you unaware of the variation in CO2 per season, per latitude and per height above ground and diurnally?
What?
You think it is the same concentration per season, per latitude, per height above ground and diurnally (throughout day and night)?
Would not a higher concentration THEN also result in a higher percentage for the variable conditions listed above?
What?
.
.
So by sheer dumb luck as the human population has grown, they have released extra CO2 into the atmosphere thereby increasing the growth rate of the plants they need to feed themselves and survive. I read somewhere that the carbon dioxide increase in atmosphere over the last 50 years has increased the growth rate of wheat by something like 25%. I have no idea whether this is true but in light of the above study it makes sense. Higher populations=more CO2= better crops and more food.
I have not read the report, so I’m not going to judge it. Maybe I will after it becomes available.
But it should be well-known that forest growth rates are very complex phenomena and are never constant. That does not mean the report is wrong or right, just that the thing they are studying is not simple, by any means.
rbroberg (13:38:05) :
…
Bigger, healthier trees: check