From the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
Increased tropical forest growth could release carbon from the soil

A new study shows that as climate change enhances tree growth in tropical forests, the resulting increase in litterfall could stimulate soil micro-organisms leading to a release of stored soil carbon.
The research was led by scientists from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the University of Cambridge, UK. The results are published online today (14 August 2011) in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change.
The researchers used results from a six-year experiment in a rainforest at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, Central America, to study how increases in litterfall – dead plant material such as leaves, bark and twigs which fall to the ground – might affect carbon storage in the soil. Their results show that extra litterfall triggers an effect called ‘priming’ where fresh carbon from plant litter provides much-needed energy to micro-organisms, which then stimulates the decomposition of carbon stored in the soil.
![]() |
||||
Lead author Dr Emma Sayer from the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “Most estimates of the carbon sequestration capacity of tropical forests are based on measurements of tree growth. Our study demonstrates that interactions between plants and soil can have a massive impact on carbon cycling. Models of climate change must take these feedbacks into account to predict future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.”
The study concludes that a large proportion of the carbon sequestered by greater tree growth in tropical forests could be lost from the soil. The researchers estimate that a 30% increase in litterfall could release about 0.6 tonnes of carbon per hectare from lowland tropical forest soils each year. This amount of carbon is greater than estimates of the climate-induced increase in forest biomass carbon in Amazonia over recent decades. Given the vast land surface area covered by tropical forests and the large amount of carbon stored in the soil, this could affect the global carbon balance.
![]() |
||||
Tropical forests play an essential role in regulating the global carbon balance. Human activities have caused carbon dioxide levels to rise but it was thought that trees would respond to this by increasing their growth and taking up larger amounts of carbon. However, enhanced tree growth leads to more dead plant matter, especially leaf litter, returning to the forest floor and it is unclear what effect this has on the carbon cycle.
Dr Sayer added, “Soils are thought to be a long-term store for carbon but we have shown that these stores could be diminished if elevated carbon dioxide levels and nitrogen deposition boost plant growth.”
Co-author Dr Edmund Tanner, from the University of Cambridge, said, “This priming effect essentially means that older, relatively stable soil carbon is being replaced by fresh carbon from dead plant matter, which is easily decomposed. We still don’t know what consequences this will have for carbon cycling in the long term.”


“Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.” That’s the way this AGW thang works. Temperature increases are caused by global warming and temperature decreases are caused by global warming. It’s another spin on “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.”
Let’s see if I understand this: more leaf/twig tree litter = more food for termites
more food for termites = increase in populations of termites (which in aggregate already exceeds the total mass of humans).
More termites = more atmospheric carbon dioxide (they already produce more than Man) AND more atmostpheric methane.
So if we want to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases, we should level all the forests (I suggest dumping the trees in abandoned coal mines. It would be deliciously ironic) and starve the termites. Problem solved (except maybe for that pesky oxygen thing). I wonder what the green movement would think of this solution.
vigilantfish says: (August 15, 2011 at 8:09 pm)
I recommend Charles C. Mann’s 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. It’s a book that infuriates environmental extremists, as it completely dispels the myth of the pre-Columbian natural paradise with small tribes of Indians living in harmony with nature.
That goes to the root of the whole shebang, vigilant. Destroy the dreamers and their yearning and then we can get on with glorying in this big, wide, wonderful world we live in and spreading the bounty to all our brothers and sisters the world around — which is what I believe the best of us worked to do before the rapture…
This study seems to come from another planet. Who else would be interested in having more carbon sequestered at the expense of carbon to drive plant growth and to feed the growing population?
OMG! We have to kill the trees to save the planet!
Um, actually that’s 85% gas, 15% ethanol. Any more, and your engine self-destructs (even faster). And the 15% cost more oil fuels to generate than it replaces. Ethanol is a scam even the Goredom One has repudiated.
We need a Weasel Word Disambiguation WikiDictionary. Here’s a suggested entry:
“sequester” = temporarily slow the cycling of an element or compound.
Generally a bad idea when it comes to carbon. The faster it cycles, the more living is happening.
Or is it kill the planet to save the trees? Or the opposite? Or vice versa of the opposite? Or both? Owwww … my brain is hurting …
Brian H says:
August 19, 2011 at 11:42 am
gas says:
August 15, 2011 at 5:09 am
…..
.that’s better…..going for a drive in my beautiful 6litre V8 now…..runs on 85% ethanol so no worries…
Um, actually that’s 85% gas, 15% ethanol. Any more, and your engine self-destructs (even faster). And the 15% cost more oil fuels to generate than it replaces. Ethanol is a scam even the Goredom One has repudiated.
Umm…..my understanding is that an engine that can run on E85 fuel can run on fuel that’s 85% ethanol…..
I may be wrong though and thanks for the assist either way..I did question my ‘facts’.
Ta.
gas;
you are correct. I was looking at figures related to how standard gas engines react to ethanol inclusions.
But be assured you’re using more petrol than pure petrol cars, because it costs more fuel to make each energy equivalent ethanol fill-up than you get back. Then there’s all those starved victims of the displaced food production (price doubling, etc.) to forget about.