From the University of Michigan
U-M ecologist: Future forests may soak up more carbon dioxide than previously believed
![]()
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.
Once more, clearly.
To sequester C by planting vegetation, you need to increse the weight of C at a given plot of land, then maintain that increase indefinitely.
A scam that does not comply with this simple requirement needs its planners to be put in a small concrete room, breaking large rocks into small rocks.
It does not matter if you can find old homes with wood 400 years old. Compared with total wood cut down 400 years ago, survival is miniscule. Given time, wood will either oxidise to give (mainly) CO2, or it will be buried into the peat/coal type cycle.
I have never heard of a carbon credit scheme where the promoters aim to make more coal over the next x00,000 years before taking a profit. Therefore, promoters of tree planting to sequester CO2 are universally to be condemned, unless they have fine print that states compliance with the first principle above.
While the will to plant more trees to harvest cash is abundant, the will to maintain the captured carbon forever is almost universally absent. Come in, suckers.
Bah, University of Michigan and their trees! At University of Illinois, we cut down their trees, grind them, and convert them into biochar!
http://www.istc.illinois.edu/research/090110symposium/1445.pdf
Sorry, the Fighting Illini football team are on a roll, I got carried away…..biochar is great stuff, it improves the soil’s capacity to retain nutrients, reduces runoff pollution and is older than the hills (terra preta was biochar used by pre-Columbian peoples in the Amazon basin).
So…life adapts to changing conditions. Who’d have thought it?
/sarc
*****
Pete in Cumbria UK says:
October 14, 2011 at 12:39 am
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
*****
Same as the copse of Bristly locust (Robinia hispida) in front of my house, where the grass is always greener than anywhere else. It suckers freely.
J Calvert N:
a tree that weighs ten tons is a biiiiig tree, even counting needles and root ball.
C
Bill Parsons:
i read through your referenced logging survey. my experience is in the western montana kellog idaho area during the early 60’s.
the survey runs over the same stuff that was important fifty years ago. its vastly interesting that the loggers want bigger trucks that last longer between repairs with drivers that don’t drive off of the road when they’re half drunk, hauling logs (that the pay rate is much higher) to a mill that is only 15 miles from the timber sale rather than the 50 that it was.
i find it also interesting that the survey pretty much leans to the more highly organized companies vs the “contract” outfits. contract loggers can really make money as long as their hours of work are not artificially restricted. one of the biggest logging shows in the northwest at that time (60-65) was run by a retired history teacher out of his back bedroom and shut down after five years of successful operation. (he did it on a bar bet and it was planned from the start to last five years.) it was all “green books” and “tin tag” numbers.
one of the things that i find missing is that it appears as though the EPA has made serious inroads in the use of the “scrap wood” burned in the furnaces of low pressure (100-125#) boilers that were used to power both the sawmills and the drying houses. now they have to pay MONEY for “politically correct fuel” to do those tasks.
it is also interesting that the largest buyer of “chips” in the area has gone out of business. (this is the stuff that the college bunch in north carolina was\is using in their wood to steam explosion experiments discussed a week or so ago on this blog.)
i would point out that in order to transport the wood chips the local gang and the railroads built some truly gargantuan trucks and railroad cars pushed out to the maximum clearances 10’x16’x80′ to haul the chips and still make money.
one of the things that the college boys never knew or didn’t bother to find out is that all wood product stuff is really temporary. this is because the trees (the crop) takes so long to bring to harvest (30-90 yrs) that by the time its ready for harvest a major change in the action (better transportation, bigger mill, off shore owner that takes the entire tree across an ocean) makes the “infrastructure” unusable. a prime example was when several of the big companies that practiced “balanced cutting” [that is replanting what you cut for a continous operation] were bought out by asian money and all of the logs were hauled out and nothing was replanted. it was a prime example of “bean counters” in a foreign land calling the shots and selling off the operation when the whole thing was clearcut. that put most of oregon and some of washington in the bread lines for quite some time.
the more things change the more they remain the same.
C
Pamela Gray says:
Who are these researchers? Kids???? Do they NOT do liturature review anymore in preparation for their research proposal? And who sat on the grant committee and decided this study would produce new information?
Probably dosn’t help that lead researcher is a “microbial ecologist” as opposed to any kind of botanist.
Freeman Dyson was all over this issue years ago. I was amazed by a short video interview of him from 2007 when he talks about this issue. I found it on popular technology:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
Where you can also find the list of over 900 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of AGW, among other things. They appreciate submissions/references for other papers that can be added to the list as you run across them. Here’s the Dyson video, it’s around 6 min. long.
It looks like they”ve been busy since I was last there and have put up a number of other pages with the following reference :
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Green” Energy
1,000 References of Global Cooling
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Censored Global Warming Videos
Climategate Resource
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm
NASA Astronaut Legends Skeptical of AGW Alarm
Prominent Climatologists Skeptical of AGW Alarm
Real Temperatures
The Anti “Green” Energy Resource
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource
The Anti Marijuana Resource
The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
The Truth about Greenfyre
The Truth about RealClimate.org
The Truth about SourceWatch
Perhaps we should get him talking with the farmer who swears that by grinding a certain rock type into small bits and strewing this on the field produces exceptional growth because the plants can actually take nitrogen not only from soil, but also rock.
http://tinyurl.com/3r9g6rv
and
http://tinyurl.com/3oakajy
Rational Debate:
if zaks idea of a “wall” limet of growth from trees over using nitrogen was of meret, just why hasn’t it happened several million years ago.
if he is right we are actually living in an era that is the aftermath of that happening. could it be that this happens so slowly that we will adapt to its effects and not notice it?
C
pk;
Report to class. Your promotion from Grade 3 has been revoked.
“limit” “merit”.
Does anyone know how much they elevated the CO2 to get their 26% growth increase?
Unfortunately, the Zak paper is paywalled.
I think I found the answer, in a different paper from the same group:
…elevated CO2 (+CO2) of 560 µmol/mol…
µmol/mol is another way of saying ppmv. So, the answer is that they kept CO2 at around 560 ppm (probably chosen because it is 2x a presumed pre-industrial 280 ppm).
That’s actually very good news! I was afraid that it took 1000 ppm or more to get that 26% growth improvement. 560 ppm might be achievable before the end of the 21st century, if the greenies don’t bollix it up.
Imagine if we were anticipating a climate change that was expected to reduce plant growth rates, by about 21%,for trees, and similar amounts for other plants, world-wide. The prospect would be universally & correctly considered to be an enormous disaster.
Well, that’s the 390 ppm CO2 scenario, compared to 560 ppm. 1 – (100%/126%) = 21%. So if we want to avoid that disaster we’d better not curb CO2 emissions!
No worries, mate! We have China on our side. Heh-heh!!
>:-)