Now it's more CO2 that will threaten crops

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
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
205 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RockyRoad
May 14, 2010 3:29 am

Practically every commercial greenhouse jacks their CO2 levels to between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm–that’s a far better level than ambient and it is cost effective to do so. This article isn’t a Friday spoof, is it? OK, just kidding.
But the real gist of the article is seen in the statement “… further research is needed on how plants assimilate nitrate and ammonium, Bloom said.”
They should have said: “We’ve invented a problem; now, where’s the grant money to chase it?” I believe they’ve done the same thing with Global Wa… I mean, Climate Change. Sheesh.

Max
May 14, 2010 3:29 am

Well, i would speculate that their results were due to the Focus on only two plants. Also, the article doesn’t mention what “Long” means…

crash13
May 14, 2010 3:32 am

And in what universe is nitrogen a mineral?

May 14, 2010 3:34 am

Note that the human contribution to CO2 is agreed to be 3% of the total, cows producing more & termites much more. So the negative feedback of plants absorbing more is bound to prevent more than about a 10% increase in CO2 (unless the rise is natural rather than manmade).

mike
May 14, 2010 3:34 am

sorry, it was linked at climate audit. anyway:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf

Darkinbad the Brighdayler
May 14, 2010 3:42 am

“If current projections hold true” is I think the key phrase here. It would be interesting to see the base projections and their rationale for using them.
A limited range of plants seem to have been examined.

Joe
May 14, 2010 3:45 am

In other words, putting plants in a jar and experimenting until the appropriate results were achieved.
I have trees that will not be exchanging gases this year as they were tricked into a very early season of opening their leaves. 2 nights of frost have made them look like fall.
Is CO2 more deadly to plant and animal life or cold? Hmmmm.

May 14, 2010 3:47 am

It strikes me that even if the proportion of protein is reduced, the growth increase means there is more actual protein.
Of course not all plants need more protein. Too much in wheat flour leads to a tough, chewy bread. High protein flours require a deft touch to knead the dough just enough, without causing the proteins to combine to form excess gluten.
Too much in barley adds off flavors. The brewer boils the wort to cause the proteins to clump together so they will settle out. The ensuing rapid chilling ensures they do not return to solution.
Do we really worry about how much protein is in our tomatoes?

Alex
May 14, 2010 3:50 am

There were times with much higher CO2 concentration in the Earth history. I guess these were the moments when plant life went completely extinct.
Or do we miss something?

Jimbo
May 14, 2010 3:50 am

Nov. 2005

“A regional climate change model (PRECIS) for China, developed by the UK’s Hadley Centre, was used to simulate China’s climate and to develop climate change scenarios for the country. Results from this project suggest that, depending on the level of future emissions, the average annual temperature increase in China by the end of the twenty-first century may be between 3 and 4 degrees C. Regional crop models were driven by PRECIS output to predict changes in yields of key Chinese food crops: rice, maize and wheat. Modelling suggests that climate change without carbon dioxide (CO2) fertilization could reduce the rice, maize and wheat yields by up to 37% in the next 20-80 years. ” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16433100

Climate change without carbon dioxide!!!!

Joe
May 14, 2010 3:52 am

Here is the list of causes to Global Warming and the Extinctions it is causing:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Olaf Koenders
May 14, 2010 3:54 am

“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.”
In other words:
“What we confidently stated in all previous paragraphs was essentially a lie and that we know absolutely nothing about plants and nitrates, but we have cushy and highly funded jobs under the Global Warming scare campaign, and we’d like to keep it that way.”

Philip T. Downman
May 14, 2010 3:59 am

It has been said: One difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it’s limitations.

LearDog
May 14, 2010 4:03 am

So – this is science? “Let’s poison plants with CO2” and then discover that there is an optimal level of nitrogen that goes with? And – the corker – need to lecture FARMERS (these are professionals, you eggheads) that they need to pay attention to their plants’ nitrogen needs?
Lord.

May 14, 2010 4:06 am

This just goes to show that you can get any answer you want if someone is paying you to produce propaganda.
Yes, it’s true that SOME cultivars lay down lower levels of protein under higher levels of CO2. Well, obviously, farmers wouldn’t grow those cultivars, then, would they? We’re not that stupid. We’ll be growing ones that thrive under the higher levels of CO2 and lay down more protein.
Check out some posts I’ve done on this issue
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/world-food-supplies-and-carbon-emissions/
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/crops-and-130-years-of-climate-records/
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/growth-of-crops-weeds-co2-and-lies/
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/co2-enrichment-and-plant-nutrition/

H.R.
May 14, 2010 4:11 am

“[…] as lower protein levels in plants will force both people and pests to consume more plant material to meet their nutritional requirements,” Bloom said. […]”
E-Z peazy! Eat more lizards to make up for the lost protien.

May 14, 2010 4:13 am

Then the Alarmists will tell us not to breathe because of excess CO2. 🙂

May 14, 2010 4:14 am

We shouldn’t wonder why scientists are lsoing their credibility. We’ve seen too many huffed up claims in recent times. Some of these people will look like complete idiots soon (many actually are).

May 14, 2010 4:14 am

Grant forcing – that’s it.

Wally
May 14, 2010 4:16 am

This makes sense to me, a faster growing plant may have issues in the quality of nutrients it generates. Of course faster growing plants would also deplete soil nitrogen faster. The issue really is if the extra CO2 increases the growth rate of the plant faster then it decreases the protein levels. If you get 40% more grain and a 20% decrease in protein per grain you still come out ahead.

Robin Kool
May 14, 2010 4:16 am

“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.”
Wikipedia gives 12.6% protein in wheat.
When there is a 20% higher yield of wheat and a 9% decrease in wheat protein, in total the farmer harvests 9.5% more wheat protein.
In short: as you elevate levels of CO2, total yield rises sharply, while protein yield rises slower. The percentage of protein has decreased a bit, the total yield of protein has risen.
It does mean that if you depend on wheat for your protein, you will have to eat a few spoonfuls more.
Details, details.

Curiousgeorge
May 14, 2010 4:18 am

Not having read the study, but only the post here I’d have to say it was probably flawed in several ways. Not all vegetation responds equally to CO2 concentrations or to the same levels of nutrients, water, soil ph, microbial activity, climate, timing, etc. Any farmer can tell you that. Obtaining maximum yield from a particular crop in a specific location is part art, part science and requires the right balance of numerous factors. Here’s some info from MSU ( a well respected “cow college” ) here in Mississippi.
http://msucares.com/crops/fertilizer/index.html .
http://msucares.com/crops/soils/nitrogen.html

Richard111
May 14, 2010 4:22 am

OK. Lots of talk. Where’s the data?

Ian W
May 14, 2010 4:27 am

Old Seadog is correct – it is a standard practice to flood commercial greenhouses with CO2 to improve yields and plant quality. There are many references just two are:
“CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
IMPROVES PLANT GROWTH AND QUALITY
Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.
The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.
Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.”

http://www.homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
2.4 CO2
CO2 is the substrate of photosynthesis and enrichment of it in the greenhouse increases plant growth, fruit set, number of fruit and average fruit weight (Dorais et al., 2001). Even in poor light conditions, enrichment of CO2 during the reproductive phase induces earlier flowering and fruit set (Grouda, 2005). An increase in tomato yield of 21 % could be seen after 4 weeks with a CO2 concentration of 900 μmol mol-1, and 16 % after 20 weeks with a CO2 concentration of 450 μmol mol-1 compared to ambient levels. The improved growth rate is due to an increase of the net assimilation rate since plants can photosynthesise more at higher CO2 concentrations (Heuvelink & Dorais, 2005).

http://ex-epsilon.slu.se:8080/archive/00002334/01/Examensarbete_final.pdf

MK
May 14, 2010 4:30 am

It’s quite common to generate C02 to augment greenhouses. Just google Co2 Generator