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
I guess the farmers are just sittin’ aroun’ on their butts waiting for them thar scientific types to tell ’em how to farm…
what we need is a unfunded hot house owner to grow wheat under 1600 ppm co2
oldseadog, the commercial tomato growers are interested in tonnage. Extra CO2 gives you that, but less nutritional value. The Davis study is only one of many reaching this conclusion, e.g. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~john/24%20Cons.Biol.pdf.
Another concern is increased toxicity in important crops and animal feed, like cassava and clover (http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/1497).
There is some justification in adding a bit of CO2 in greenhouses because otherwise the level might be too low, but I’ll bet they overdo it (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm).
Isn’t the average greenhouse at about 1000 ppm CO2?
There’s a LOT of articles oriented for those using greenhouses on CO2 use, and a typical recommendation is two or three times the ambient amount (i.e. 600-900 ppm) for optimal plant growth. Example: http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
So, a 50% increase doesn’t seem worrisome, especially given how horticulturists have established norms way beyond that.
What the article is doing is presenting as sensationalistic that under different diets, etc. living things behave differently. One could write an equally alarmist-sounding piece about the dangers of suntanning (how tans leads to changed production of vitamin D for a given amount of sunlinght), etc.
Different is not necessarily bad — the article skirted this with implications (e.g less nitrogen to less protien) without quantifying how great the differences are (or if they’re even measurable).
Its a typical leftist/liberal/enviro-wacko tactic — make insinuations that play on emotions, which once activated don’t look for objective facts…human nature being what it is, once people get emotionally excited about something the subsequent introduction of objective facts, including facts that defuse the causes for emotional alarm, are at best only marginally examined. Here’s a political example of that pervasive shortfall that seems to be hard-wired into basic human nature:
http://www.salon.com/news/environment/mind_reader/2008/09/22/voter_choice/print.html
Of course, just a little cognitive exertion will overcome that…but most people are simply too lazy to exert the mental effort.
As CO2 levels rise, farmers may have to replenish more nutrients in the soil because of increased crop growth… sounds reasonable to me. This is really fertilizer management research that has been phrased to take advantage of popular research funding themes… in doing so, they have greatly confused their message.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,nitrogen status of plants declines ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
We have good news and we have bad news. The crop yield is up 100% per acre. The protein yeild of the wheat per acre is up only 85%.
Send us money.
Also they did not confess that higher CO2 levels cause the plant to actually require less water for growth.
Hey, I don’t know about you, but I’m an omnivore. Most of my protein comes meat and fish. Does this only affect vegans?
The leek shall inherit the earth.
Seconding Derek B. and others above–I have also seen reports of excessive CO2 leading to less nutritional value in crops, but I cannot remember exactly at what levels of CO2 this becomes a problem. I think it’s higher than we’ll get to in this century, though. And as others have pointed out, even if nutritional value goes up less than plant growth, you still come out ahead in the long run.
The Koala thing…
I remember that one now that you mention it.
Re: the article – The lack of any quantifiable levels of CO2 raised my suspicion as well.
Plus the mention of lowered oxygen lvevels without any statement as to their purpose, effect or quantity.
I did find a similiar, earlier study by the same scientist online
http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v063n02p67&fulltext=yes
In this article it appears most of the studies were conducted at 700ppm. Although the graph for measuring plant mass was done at 567ppm.
It does mention at one point that the Plant Mass vs. Protein could cancel each other out.
It makes me wonder if the huge increase in stem length and mass in the CO2 science video is the plants way of compensating by trying to get more Nitrogen from the soil.
From what I can see in the old article, the experiments were done in a lab environment, so probably had limited soil depth. Or perhaps they were done in a hydrponic setting
Anyone who uses wheat or mustard as a significant source of PROTEIN in their diets has major problems anyway….
Greenhouses add CO2 to increase plant vitality & growth (to about 1000+ppm).
While UC Davis presents some seemingly/potentially alarming effects (which may not be for a variety of reasons) also bear in mind how CO2 and fertilizers & cross-pollination breeding has been conducted to impressive success in some areas.
Such as marihuana production — something achieved by a number of Canadian pot growers is a “highly enriched” potent form(s) of pot with THC (the active ingredient for getting “high”) at something like double or more the levels that occured in the late 1970s.
In other words, where there’s a market enterprising people will find a way to generate solutions to a problem or other shortfall.
Which is another identifying trait associated with the Leftist/liberal/enviro-whacko mentality — namely that the status quo is optimal and if it changes for any reason we are helpless to respond. Which history shows is completely untrue as so many of us are inspired to find solutions, etc. to any challenge (though, to concede a point, to a point, THEY may be helpless).
Given that the demand (and need) for food is unlikely to abate in the foreseeable future, I’m confident that IF the UC Davis findings are correct (that higher CO2 leads to less nutritious plants that lead to less nutritious food products, and that effect is not offset by higher volumes of plants, etc.) people will find some way of breeding plants that trive as desired in the conditions that exist.
After all, if a bunch of enterprising pot-heads can do it why can’t we?
Notice that the release does not actually describe what was done or how.
No mention of CO2 levels used in the experiment, no discussion of other growing variables applied.
Of course, they are ignoring the fact that the supposedly low CO2 before the latter half of the 20th century is a lie and that CO2 has peaked higher than now three times in the previous 150 years, as recently as the 1940s at 440-550 ppm, and temperatures dropped while CO2 was high. SOo, that’s wrong.
Then, we have the fact that CO2 partitions into sea water 50 to 1 versus air and we would have to put 50 times more CO2 in the air to double CO2 and there is simply not enough available carbon to do this. We might be able to produce a 20%, if we tried.
If CO2 was to rise as far as protected, it would not be us causing it – it would have to be natural as we are impotent to make such changes happen.
As CO2 concentrations are largely dependent on ocean temperature and the huge CO2 sink of the oceans is the major source of additional CO2 with warming, it is hubris to then assume that we have any control over CO2 concentrations.
Of course, these statements sound wrong, if you accept another lie from the IPCC that CO2 has a 200 year half-life in the atmosphere. The real number is closer to 5.4 years, indicating a relatively high rate of turnover and a very dynamic system.
From a biochemist point of view, the protein content of some plant tissues might indeed decrease as the added CO2 may make the plants’ use of resources better and they can grow faster with less investment in protein. This does not mean unhealthy plants, just plants doing their thing more efficiently. So, eat an extra bite of veggies and we’re done.
Remember, the alarmist/bedwetters are grabbing at any and everything to fear-monger the public.
Oh, that nasty, nasty see-oh-too. Up to its old tricks of making plants grow faster and bigger, lowering its demand for water, and oh, yeah, maybe, just maybe, winding up with a somewhat lower percentage of protein, if you don’t increase the nitrogen.
Poor C02. This campaign against a life-giving gas amounts to a modern-day version of the Salem witch trials, spurred by ignorance and hysteria, and will be recognized as such in the future as our offspring and theirs struggle against the cold.
This is all about aquaculture.
Fishing for grants.
Need to force these idiots to watch Patrick Moore’s lecture in which he shows that CO2 was 4 times the modern concentration through nearly all the history of life on earth. Plants evolved to live on 4 times the modern amount. Plants have been STARVING, not DROWNING, for the last several millenia.
http://tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2010030171&TYPE=V&CFID=6045128&CFTOKEN=84663653&bhcp=1
Real worry is that with increase of CO2 TRex will return and eat us all. I went to the Dino exhibits and I saw with my own eyes the plants at the time of TRex and we don’t want that to happen ever again.
This is elementary. Teenager sprouts like a weed. Can’t get enough to eat. Growing too fast. Must. Have. More. Food.
Greenhouse plants don’t just get added CO2. If that is all they got, they would grow, but would soon show the need for nitrogen. So, such plants also get more nitrogen, etc to keep pace with their fast and luscious growth under increased CO2 conditions. Every greenhouse grower I know must be still on the floor laughing at this wondiferous piece of research when they could have saved coinage by asking these growers the same question posed in the study.
The fixing of nitrogen in the soil is every farmer’s constant front burner issue. Always has been. Always will be.
File research under “duh”.
As a long-time (30 years +) advanced hobbyist in applying indoor hydroponic techniques to raise all manner of plants, I, like most greenhouse growers, pay good money to raise CO2 levels in my growing spaces. I run mine at ~500 ppm most of the time, but with some of my floral crops, I have been known to push that to ~1000 ppm for the duration of the flowering cycle.
It’s laughable that now some boffins have declared that a technique many of us have known and used for decades is evidence of the impending collapse of agriculture as we know it. Their study might have gone down a bit more easily had it had the phrase “Your mileage may vary” tagged on at the end (and in all honesty, not having access to the source study, I can’t swear that it doesn’t have the boffin-equivalent of YMMV).
Given UCD’s proximity to the Green Triangle in Northern California, these boffins best watch out – the commercial pot growers there are likely to become, er, restive should they believe the increased crop yields which allow them to supply 65%- 80% of the pot in America are being threatened by some lab-coated twerps seeking greater largess at the teat of NIS/NSF funding.
It’s a strange old life, it is.
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
Hemp (seed) is the answer.
If the questions are-
Do we need more food?
Do we need more food at higher latitudes?
Do we need more food at higher elevations?
Do we need more food using less pesticides?
Do we need more food using less herbicides?
Do we need more food using less fungicides?
Do we need more food using less fertilizers?
Do we need more food using less water?
Do we need up to 3 crops per year?
Without the usual need to rotate?
Blessing any other crop that is rotated with it?
Do we need safer, stronger, more recyclable, less polluting fibres?
Do we need 3 times the yield per acre?
For clothing?
For manufacturing?
Do we need fuel?
Hemp is the answer. CO2, at much greater concentrations than we currently suffer under, only helps this wonderful plant do all the marvellous things it does. Its closest relative is even better at all those things but we had best not go there 😉
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
May 14, 2010 at 5:27 am
Anyone who uses wheat or mustard as a significant source of PROTEIN in their diets has major problems anyway….
One should also beware of the mustard gas still around, apparently left over from WWI. It is apparently at least as toxic as C02 is ….
(Almost) everyone seems to be missing the point here: The study implies more CO2 decreases the plants NUTRITIONAL CONTENT. CO2 does have a large effect on plant growth (there is no question), but apparently that comes at the cost of proteins that make the plants nutritious to us (and livestock).
It’s like feeding a human lots of potato chips: there is a huge increase in size, but obvious negative side effects.
This study has just been released so it is interesting a farmer in Australia has already hear about it. One of the biggest weapons in the skeptics arsenal for winning over the uneducated masses was the increase in crop yield due to CO2. This paper sure looks like it is designed to shoot holes in that argument and it has already been spread worldwide.
“…findings from previous research by Bloom and colleagues suggested that elevated levels of carbon dioxide decreased photorespiration and inhibited nitrate assimilation in plant shoots.
The word suggested is NOT the word proved
ROM says:
May 14, 2010 at 2:17 am
“I am a layman, an old retired grain farmer but I have a standing invitation to short monthly internal seminars
The research project which involves a number of international Agriculture Research organisations on a number of international sites and a number of different broad acre field crops and crop types, drifts controlled and high level concentrations of CO2 , I think of around 1000 ppm CO2 is the aimed for concentration , over small sections of open field crops to ascertain just what effect increased CO2 levels have on growth, quality and other plant characteristics under actual field simulated conditions and over the life of the crop.
One of the conclusions from the experiment so far and as expected, is that “photo synthesis and plant bio-mass and yield do indeed increase substantially with the extra CO2 for exactly the same water availability and plant nutrient availability as the non CO2 enhanced adjoining crop….”
_____________________________________________________________________
I think ROM provided the key as did the actual press release.
“….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….”
Here is another study on a grass used for hay “… The average content of crude protein, ADF and NDF in leaf depending on the vegetation space and the application of mineral fertilizers…” http://www.istocar.bg.ac.rs/radovi8/2/79.%20engl.%20R.%20Stanisavljevic%20SR.pdf
Note the “depending on the vegetation space” vegetation space translates into the amount of CO2, sunlight and everything else the plant has access to. If the plant is growing a lot faster due to CO2 what does that do to its access to the required sunlight and nutrients? Have they actually identified the mechanism that limits the nitrogen up take? Remember those roots have increased in length and mass so are we looking at competition at the root level? Have the roots grown down beyond where the nutrients are? Is that what interfering “with plants’ ability to convert nitrate into protein” actually means?
Also note the protein content in the grass is dependent on “the application of mineral fertilizers” so fertilizer application has ALWAYS been a limiting factor in commercially grown crops, nothing new there.
The word “suggests” keeps me thinking of the Fleischmann & Pons claims of “Cold Fusion” but with a lot more political ramifications. Once this study makes it main stream whether or not the claims in the study are true becomes immaterial. I have even read a blog that proves “the Global Cooling/Ice Age scare” of the 70’s is a fabrication of climate deniers.
One other thing, Raymond Clemencon is another faculty member at UC. He was one of the negotiators on the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. I would not trust any science that comes out of UC given its UN connections and its aggressive advocacy of Agenda 21.