Plant trees, not carbon laws

From the University of Michigan

U-M ecologist: Future forests may soak up more carbon dioxide than previously believed

36944_web[1]

An aerial view of the 38-acre experimental forest in Wisconsin where U-M researchers and their colleagues continuously exposed birch, aspen and maple trees to elevated levels of carbon dioxide and ozone gas from 1997 through 2008. Credit: David Karnosky, Michigan Technological University

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—North American forests appear to have a greater capacity to soak up heat-trapping carbon dioxide gas than researchers had previously anticipated.

As a result, they could help slow the pace of human-caused climate warming more than most scientists had thought, a U-M ecologist and his colleagues have concluded.

The results of a 12-year study at an experimental forest in northeastern Wisconsin challenge several long-held assumptions about how future forests will respond to the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide blamed for human-caused climate change, said University of Michigan microbial ecologist Donald Zak, lead author of a paper published online this week in Ecology Letters.

“Some of the initial assumptions about ecosystem response are not correct and will have to be revised,” said Zak, a professor at the U-M School of Natural Resources and Environment and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.

To simulate atmospheric conditions expected in the latter half of this century, Zak and his colleagues continuously pumped extra carbon dioxide into the canopies of trembling aspen, paper birch and sugar maple trees at a 38-acre experimental forest in Rhinelander, Wis., from 1997 to 2008.

Some of the trees were also bathed in elevated levels of ground-level ozone, the primary constituent in smog, to simulate the increasingly polluted air of the future. Both parts of the federally funded experiment—the carbon dioxide and the ozone treatments—produced unexpected results.

In addition to trapping heat, carbon dioxide is known to have a fertilizing effect on trees and other plants, making them grow faster than they normally would. Climate researchers and ecosystem modelers assume that in coming decades, carbon dioxide’s fertilizing effect will temporarily boost the growth rate of northern temperate forests.

Previous studies have concluded that this growth spurt would be short-lived, grinding to a halt when the trees can no longer extract the essential nutrient nitrogen from the soil.

But in the Rhinelander study, the trees bathed in elevated carbon dioxide continued to grow at an accelerated rate throughout the 12-year experiment. In the final three years of the study, the CO2-soaked trees grew 26 percent more than those exposed to normal levels of carbon dioxide.

It appears that the extra carbon dioxide allowed trees to grow more small roots and “forage” more successfully for nitrogen in the soil, Zak said. At the same time, the rate at which microorganisms released nitrogen back to the soil, as fallen leaves and branches decayed, increased.

“The greater growth has been sustained by an acceleration, rather than a slowing down, of soil nitrogen cycling,” Zak said. “Under elevated carbon dioxide, the trees did a better job of getting nitrogen out of the soil, and there was more of it for plants to use.”

Zak stressed that growth-enhancing effects of CO2 in forests will eventually “hit the wall” and come to a halt. The trees’ roots will eventually “fully exploit” the soil’s nitrogen resources. No one knows how long it will take to reach that limit, he said.

The ozone portion of the 12-year experiment also held surprises.

Ground-level ozone is known to damage plant tissues and interfere with photosynthesis. Conventional wisdom has held that in the future, increasing levels of ozone would constrain the degree to which rising levels of carbon dioxide would promote tree growth, canceling out some of a forest’s ability to buffer projected climate warming.

In the first few years of the Rhinelander experiment, that’s exactly what was observed. Trees exposed to elevated levels of ozone did not grow as fast as other trees. But by the end of study, ozone had no effect at all on forest productivity.

“What happened is that ozone-tolerant species and genotypes in our experiment more or less took up the slack left behind by those who were negatively affected, and that’s called compensatory growth,” Zak said. The same thing happened with growth under elevated carbon dioxide, under which some genotypes and species fared better than others.

“The interesting take home point with this is that aspects of biological diversity—like genetic diversity and plant species compositions—are important components of an ecosystem’s response to climate change,” he said. “Biodiversity matters, in this regard.”

###

Co-authors of the Ecology Letters paper were Kurt Pregitzer of the University of Idaho, Mark Kubiske of the U.S. Forest Service and Andrew Burton of Michigan Technological University. The work was funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Forest Service.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

116 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian H
October 13, 2011 10:30 pm

More elements of the elaborate and effective self-regulating nature of the bio-plus-atmosphere.

October 13, 2011 10:31 pm

“Zak stressed that growth-enhancing effects of CO2 in forests will eventually “hit the wall” and come to a halt. The trees’ roots will eventually “fully exploit” the soil’s nitrogen resources. No one knows how long it will take to reach that limit, he said.”
And what results in the study support this conclusion? They already had their expectations proven wrong once, but they turn around and state this as a definite that there is a hard limit to the nitrogen cycle?

October 13, 2011 10:34 pm

“The results of a 12-year study at an experimental forest in northeastern Wisconsin challenge several long-held assumptions about how future forests will respond to the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide blamed for human-caused climate change…”
I think that sums it up. Science is dependent on data not assumptions or model bafflegab.

Terry Jackson
October 13, 2011 10:44 pm

Dang, more “unexpectedly” for the “science is settled” sector.
Numerous experiments and actual business enterprises have shown that CO2 is plant food and increases growth. If they next look at natural succession they might notice that early pioneer plants tend to be nitrogen fixers preparing the soil for their successors.

Greg Cavanagh
October 13, 2011 10:48 pm

It demonstrates the pointlessness of models as predictors, when applied to largely unknown complex multi faceted unstable systems.
Modelling water, air flow, structural members; is easy and reliable. Modelling something unknown and believing the results is dang foolish.

crosspatch
October 13, 2011 10:52 pm

Increased CO2 tends to make many plants more drought tolerant, too. Plants in higher concentrations of CO2 can make fewer stoma which reduces the amount of water they lose.

stephen parker
October 13, 2011 10:56 pm

They are having trouble seeing the wood for the trees

Ken Methven
October 13, 2011 11:02 pm

Pity there isn’t more biodiversity in the AGW perspective. Perhaps we are finally seeing more scientific data being published that dares to state facts rather than state how the facts support the theory.

Patrick Davis
October 13, 2011 11:05 pm

From the article “North American forests appear to have a greater capacity to soak up heat-trapping carbon dioxide gas than researchers had previously anticipated.”
Heat-trapping, really?

October 13, 2011 11:13 pm

Fine, but trees, like people, stop growing after a while, hold roughly constant carbon, then die and release it. So where’s the gain or loss in terms of short geological time spans? Also, it’s not just nitrogen that can become limiting. Any essential nutrient can become limiting, in theory.

Andrew Harding
Editor
October 13, 2011 11:17 pm

The problem with planting more forests to soak up CO2 is that it does not shout out to us prols that our respective governments are “doing something” to combat global warming. Windmills, green taxes and propaganda on the other hand do. Sadly this is the intrusive nature of modern politics.
The one good thing that this study may bring about is that when the fallacy of AGW becomes incontrovertible, then governments have a get-out clause to plant more forests (which whether you believe in AGW or not, cannot be a bad thing) and remove all subsidies to windmills. Our landscape will once again look picturesque and the worlds governments will not look stupid for falling for the biggest and most expensive con trick ever perpetrated on mankind

kim;)
October 13, 2011 11:22 pm

Cool!!!
My big brother and I, bought, planted, and tended 90 – 120 trees a year. NOT because of AGW, but for conservation reasons. 🙂

Graeme No.3
October 13, 2011 11:23 pm

Don’t believe this, until the trees are Peer Reviewed!
That won’t be before the next report from the IPCC for sure.

October 13, 2011 11:26 pm

Bravo

Steeptown
October 13, 2011 11:36 pm

The usual false statement “heat-trapping catbon dioxide”. Where do they get the idea that carbon dioxide can trap heat? They’ve been listening to too much false propaganda.

Steve in SC
October 14, 2011 12:24 am

“Some of the initial assumptions about ecosystem response are not correct and will have to be revised,”said Zak, a professor at the U-M School of Natural Resources and Environment and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.
No shock there
Shylock!
Captain Obvious to the rescue.
Their problem is they are wedded to the CO2 is bad theory and won’t give it up til death.

James Reid
October 14, 2011 12:28 am

Having been in the habit of planting many hundreds of trees a year (with friends in a Landcare group) I am encouraged by this report.
My thoughts while reading the early part was; “what about nitrogen fixing organisms? Surely there is likely to be a change in the ecosystem to increase Nitrogen in the soil.” Pretty bloody obvious even to a non-scientist like myself.
My prediction is that gradually the story will change… all the CAGW excitement will die down but we will still be left with a disastrous carbon tax to hobble our economy. There will be no acknowledgement by the warmistas that they ever caused the panic. I wonder what the next big catastrophic man made disaster will be that requires taxes to fix?
Mmmmmh… this is hard, everything thing I can think of is already frowned upon. Aha! How about EM transmission? I know this is already a concern for some, but maybe the green movement and the “communication scientists” will model the effects of transmitting TV, radio, internet etc and decide that it is destroying the environment and must be taxed out of existence? Just thinkin’ :-).

Pete in Cumbria UK
October 14, 2011 12:39 am

Actual research, AND they seem have taken aboard the results. Well done that Zak man. 🙂
As I understand plant foody type things, nitrogen is the limiter especially and mostly because it is so water soluble (it can/does leach out of the soil) – in particular compared to phosphate and potash that bind very strongly to soil particles.
Removing stuff and burning it (Biomass) is a real killer for the medium to long term 🙁
But, nitrogen is easy – and – it took me a while to realise even on my own little patch.
Round here grows a plant called ‘Alder’ (Alnus glutinosa) It grows like nobody’s business where nothing else does.
Reason: Simple, it fixes its own nitrogen.
QED

Climate Dissident
October 14, 2011 12:44 am

What did they expect? That we lived in a stable climate from thousands of years and that our plants have forgotten about what extra CO2 can do for them?
And why are they expecting additional ozone? At least in North-America and Western Europe, air quality has been improving the last 70 years.

George Lawson
October 14, 2011 12:52 am

Geoff Sherrington says:
October 13, 2011 at 11:13 pm
“Fine, but trees, like people, stop growing after a while, hold roughly constant carbon, then die and release it. So where’s the gain or loss in terms of short geological time spans? Also, it’s not just nitrogen that can become limiting. Any essential nutrient can become limiting, in theory.”
Presumably over 100 years there would be an infinitely more take up of carbon than that lost on the death of a tree or animal to give a net take up, or is my science wrong.

October 14, 2011 12:55 am

May..may not..may…may not…
CO2 is like salt and sugar in food, beneficial or harmful according to the latest fad.

Eudoxus
October 14, 2011 1:01 am

Steepdown asks , “Where do they get the idea that carbon dioxide can trap heat?” and then suggests an answer “They’ve been listening to too much false propaganda.” Is no one here capable of or willing to explain to Steepdown an alternate explanation of where “they” get the idea that carbon dioxide can trap heat?

BioBob
October 14, 2011 1:31 am

Geoff Sherrington says:
October 13, 2011 at 11:13 pm
————————————————–
Actually, while the individual tree may die, it is replaced by another. Undisturbed high latitude / temperate forests can accumulate organic matter without any known limit. The stems, roots, leaves form a ever increasing organic layer on the forest floor that outpaces the decomposition caused by bacteria, fungus and other cellulose, etc. consumers.
Unless fire is a prominent influence in the ecosystem, it can take many hundreds of years before the accumulation process slows down in many cases. If the ecosystem is very wet, peat will accumulate for thousands of years. These < 80 year old 2nd growth forests are just STARTING this carbon accumulation process..

October 14, 2011 1:32 am

George Lawson says: October 14, 2011 at 12:52 am reGeoff Sherrington says: October 13, 2011 at 11:13 pm
George, “Infinitely” is a word with mathematical meaning that does not apply to your example. 100 years is NOT a short time on the geological era time scale. Try 10,000 years and redo your sums to find that tree planting makes no great diference. It cannot, in the way you are thinking. Trees take up carbon, they mature, they die, they release it. The only significant way to sequester carbon in trees is to replace a “barren” area with trees whose cumulative carbon weight is greater, then to maintain that carbon uptake FOREVER.
Many people do not realise how badly they are being scammed by schemes to “put more carbon into soil” or to “grow more trees for emission credits”. It’s the next closest move to outright theft. You’re daft if you invest in these credit thingos. Or of criminal mind if you start one.

Baa Humbug
October 14, 2011 1:35 am

I can’t think of one species of life that doesn’t thrive in the presence of plentiful food. Can anyone else think of one?
Tha vast Taiga forests of the northern hemisphere literally change the composition of the atmosphere during the NH spring/summer

1 2 3 5