AGU says CO2 is plant food

Thirteen Years of Greening from SeaWiFS
Thirteen Years of Greening from SeaWiFS – image from NASA Earth Observatory

Color bar for Thirteen Years of Greening from SeaWiFS

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

31 May 2013

AGU Release No. 13-24

WASHINGTON, DC—Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.

“Lots of papers have shown an average increase in vegetation across the globe, and there is a lot of speculation about what’s causing that,” said Donohue of CSIRO’s Land and Water research division, who is lead author of the new study. “Up until this point, they’ve linked the greening to fairly obvious climatic variables, such as a rise in temperature where it is normally cold or a rise in rainfall where it is normally dry. Lots of those papers speculated about the CO2 effect, but it has been very difficult to prove.”

He and his colleagues present their findings in an article that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

The team looked for signs of CO2 fertilization in arid areas, Donohue said, because “satellites are very good at detecting changes in total leaf cover, and it is in warm, dry environments that the CO2 effect is expected to most influence leaf cover.” Leaf cover is the clue, he added, because “a leaf can extract more carbon from the air during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to elevated CO2.” That is the CO2 fertilization effect.

But leaf cover in warm, wet places like tropical rainforests is already about as extensive as it can get and is unlikely to increase with higher CO2 concentrations. In warm, dry places, on the other hand, leaf cover is less complete, so plants there will make more leaves if they have enough water to do so. “If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves, and this should be measurable from satellite,” Donohue explained.

To tease out the actual CO2 fertilization effect from other environmental factors in these regions, the researchers first averaged the greenness of each location across 3-year periods to account for changes in soil wetness and then grouped that greenness data from the different locations according to their amounts of precipitation. The team then identified the maximum amount of foliage each group could attain for a given precipitation, and tracked variations in maximum foliage over the course of 20 years. This allowed the scientists to remove the influence of precipitation and other climatic variations and recognize the long-term greening trend.

In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions. “Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.”

“The effect of higher carbon dioxide levels on plant function is an important process that needs greater consideration,” said Donohue. “Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect.”

This study was funded by CSIRO’s Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.

Notes for Journalists

Journalists and public information officers (PIOs) of educational and scientific institutions who have registered with AGU can download a PDF copy of this accepted article by clicking on this link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

Or, you may order a copy of the final paper by emailing your request to Peter Weiss at PWeiss@agu.org. Please provide your name, the name of your publication, and your phone number.

Neither the paper nor this press release are under embargo.

Title:

CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments

Authors:

Randall J. Donohue and Tim R. McVicar
CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Australia;
Michael L. Roderick
Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia; Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia; and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science;
Graham D. Farquhar
Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
h/t to Dennis Wingo
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 31, 2013 12:36 pm

Peter [May 31, 2013 at 9:37 am] says:
OK, so the race is on to find something really devastating to the planet because of this greening… shouldn’t be too long.

Exactly!
The question is will they soon learn that Planetary Greening == Carbon Sequestration?
Hansen: Damn that Carbon Cycle. Damn it all to hell!

Nik
May 31, 2013 12:54 pm

Just when I was getting used to the idea that my home would turn into desert you spring this on me. I am going to sue!

Bruce Cobb
May 31, 2013 1:33 pm

Good start. Now, if they could just admit that, far from being the evilmagic gas they and their cohorts make it out to be, it is in fact only beneficial to man, to plants, and the earth.
Baby steps.

Berényi Péter
May 31, 2013 1:51 pm

That’s settled, truly. The only thing we need to figure out is how it’s worse than we thought?
Can I have my fat grant to study Anthropogenic Arborous Infestation of Pristine Mineralian Landscapes by Invasive Species?

Jpatrick
May 31, 2013 1:54 pm

There are a lot of studies that involve growing plants in a “carbon dioxide enriched” atmosphere. One of the memorable of those studies is the on-going effort at Duke university, where they observe how trees respond to a CO2 enriched atmosphere. Here’s one example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803173246.htm
Whether CO2 enrichment is “good” or not is a value judgment that may never get resolved. Not all plants respond the same, and the ones that respond most vigorously aren’t necessarily “good” plants.
I’ve never met an alarmist who knows much about this subject.

AndyG55
May 31, 2013 2:02 pm

I’ve said it before. 280ppm is about the base level for continued plant sustinence. This is where the level drops down to in the preditor/prey scenario, and not much lower (that we know of).
And that’s where is been (mostly) for a very very long time.
Toward 700ppm, i say !!

RockyRoad
May 31, 2013 2:38 pm

VikingExplorer says:
May 31, 2013 at 10:03 am

“AGW’s reversal of cause and effect to this extent is scientific malpractice.”

Now that CO2 is scientifically recognized to be beneficial, can we take the Warmista’s efforts to curtail it to mean they don’t like humans–that they want a certain portion of them to starve? Likewise, that they are enemies of any other animal that depends on photosysthesis anywhere in their food chain?
I hope someday it will be considered as bad to be a Warmista as to be a child molester. Certainly the logic is similar.

richard
May 31, 2013 3:00 pm

This year is expected to be a global record for wheat and rice, hard to tell now with the cold across the US and other parts of the world. Always worth typing into google for agricultural records for whatever crop and country you wish. In general it is all pretty positive. Very different to the usual spiel from the doomsayers.

Scarface
May 31, 2013 3:01 pm

“Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect”
In the draft it said:
Because nothing in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will find something else to blame CO2 for and tax the hell out of people.

richard
May 31, 2013 3:02 pm
May 31, 2013 3:04 pm


Yeah, there will be more pollen if there is more plant growth due to higher CO2. Duh.
At what point does broadcasting disinformation become a criminal offense? Sooner rather than later, mehopes. As I see it, lying by the news media should not be protected as free speech – it’s quite different when an entity with the ability to influence public opinion lies, than when a soapbox orator or writer of letters to his congressman does. The US news media, with the exception of Fox, the WSJ and a few other conservative outlets, strives mightily to deprive anyone they don’t agree with of his or her free speech rights – and of course der Fuehrer and his gauleiters in Washington have declarexd war on all dissenting journalists and all journalists who might point to theuir crimes.

Editor
May 31, 2013 3:05 pm

Well, a few people are having fun tearing this paper to bits, but the really crucial statement in the report on it is “They then tested this prediction”. ie, they didn’t publish until they had successfully tested.
Bit of a contrast, that, to the actions of the CAGW modellers.

May 31, 2013 3:07 pm

@rockyroad –
Scaring schoolchildren with statements that they are going to die of global warming isn’t stopped sure sounds like child abuse to me. And if the “teachers” who do this get their jollies from it, they ARE molesting those kids.

Bill Illis
May 31, 2013 3:50 pm

So far, the impact of increased CO2 is the following:
– some tiny warming that one can’t actually notice;
– a small decrease in Arctic sea ice in August and September; and,
– an 11% increase in the productivity of the biome since 1982 including a greening up of desert regions !
I’m sorry, I don’t see how one could conclude anything except the increased CO2 is very beneficial; not just for mankind but for the animals as well and especially for C3 vegetation, which doesn’t get to speak for itself.

May 31, 2013 4:18 pm

That more CO2 means greener planet was obvious by definition.
What I would like to know is:
Do they take photosynthesis (and its increase with the increase of the plant cover) into account in their equations and models as a feedback mechanism?
Photosynthesis is a sequestration of solar energy.
How do they figure it in their “forcing” calculations?

AndyG55
May 31, 2013 4:30 pm

Waiting for Trenberth to say that this is where his missing energy is.!
Thing is that if we now reduce CO2 all that energy will get released back into the atmosphere.
So sequestering and reducing CO2 is the very last thing we should do if we want to avoid catastrophic warming. (sort of only half, sarc)

MrX
May 31, 2013 4:35 pm

CO2 makes the Earth greener. Who’d of thunk it? CO2 is the ultimate green energy producer. But green advocates are against it. If alien civilizations are watching us, it’s no wonder they don’t show themselves publicly. What do we have to offer but lunacy.

Max™
May 31, 2013 4:57 pm

Hmmm, plant related catastrophe… do Triffids count?

May 31, 2013 6:56 pm

Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:
May 31, 2013 at 9:52 am.
I agree, having tried to argue all those points at the Skeptical Science playgroup some time back. None of the regulars there could see the obvious.
Arguing the first point about reduced protein levels, firstly they wouldn’t accept that historically, all other things being equal, percentage protein levels normally fall as yields increase, and conversely rise as yields decrease as part of the natural cycle of cropping under varying seasonal conditions.
Secondly they also simply could not get their tiny minds around the simple equation that shows that although % protein in the grain may fall, the increased yield means that on a per hectare basis, more protein was actually being produced for a given area of cultivation.

Katherine
May 31, 2013 7:25 pm

Nice. They came up with a model, then validated it against observations. That’s how science should be done. Hard to believe it’s a CSIRO study.

phlogiston
May 31, 2013 7:47 pm

The death of CAGW when it comes, will come with explosive pent-up force, and is likely to be the most monstrous and astonishing scientific fiasco of all time. There is a danger that in its wake all scientists will suffer from a public sentiment painting scientist as parasitic rent-seeking fraud-peddling politically-interfering misanthropic Khmer-Vert anti-economy anti-civilization anti-human compulsive liars. The day will come for laughing but at the same time keeping one’s head down.

May 31, 2013 9:43 pm

Chad Wozniak says:
May 31, 2013 at 3:07 pm
———————————
Nice point.
Doesn’t it seem a bit natural that with 7+ billion humans now inhabiting this planet that a little extra co2 might be a good idea?

AndyG55
June 1, 2013 12:13 am

If the planet is going to feed the expect human population in the future, we MUST release the carbon from underground storage into the atmosphere WHERE IT BELONGS !!!

Baa Humbug
June 1, 2013 2:02 am

Amazing. Incredible. Groundbreaking.
Increase the food supply and the species that feed on it flourishes. I’m lost for words.

Matt
June 1, 2013 2:25 am

Photosynthesis, and a positive effect of more CO2 on plants is an invention of bad big oil. They, with all their money have even managed to get this into primary school all over the planet. Its definitively worse than we thought. Hopefully big government can save us….

Verified by MonsterInsights