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
The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
johnmarshall
June 1, 2013 2:45 am

Not only is this CO2 increase good for plant increased growth but extra CO2 reduces the plant’s water requirement. this is why arid regions are getting greener not extra precipitation extra CO2.
Farming under glass is made more profitable by increasing the greenhouse atmospheric CO2 up to near 2000ppmv.
So a closed cycle would be– biowaste fermented to produce methane, this burnt to produce heat for the greenhouse and the exhaust piped in as well to supply the extra CO2. this produces more biowaste etc. etc. etc. You get the idea.

June 1, 2013 4:56 am

johnmarshall says:
June 1, 2013 at 2:45 am
Not only is this CO2 increase good for plant increased growth but extra CO2 reduces the plant’s water requirement. this is why arid regions are getting greener not extra precipitation extra CO2.

Not true for every molecule of CO2 one molecule of H2O (net) is needed:
6 CO2 + 12 H2O + photons → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O
The point made in the paper is that it is the warm, arid regions which are getting greener which means that it’s the C4 and CAM plants that are benefiting. So it’s not food crops in the main which are increasing nor trees.

Otis
June 1, 2013 8:35 am

At some point vegetation, on a global average basis, will grow faster than it decomposes. Maybe that is where coal comes from; in the past, when CO2 was at much higher levels, plants debris accumulated, depleting the atmosphere of CO2.

beng
June 1, 2013 9:40 am

***
Phil. says:
June 1, 2013 at 4:56 am
The point made in the paper is that it is the warm, arid regions which are getting greener which means that it’s the C4 and CAM plants that are benefiting. So it’s not food crops in the main which are increasing nor trees.
***
Huh? True, perhaps the moisture-marginal areas benefit the most, but there’s a vast amount of empirical data showing the benefits of more CO2. C3,C4 and CAM plants that grow in all types of environments from wet to dry. And most mid-range-moisture environments experience dry periods. Greenhouses pumping in 1000/1500 ppm CO2 only grow warm, arid-region species?

Lars P.
June 1, 2013 9:59 am

Bill Illis says:
May 31, 2013 at 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.

Bill, thinking in agricultural productivity, as Freeman Dyson said : at least 15% of our food is due to the increase in CO2.
For 7 billion humans that is food for 1 billion!
The 350 crowd would like to reverse the process and reduce food production by a respective amount? Sometimes I ask myself if they are really aware of what they stand for?
This is a nice simple photo:
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/html/PlantPPM2.jpg
CO2science.org had a very nice database with plants, hundreads of studies organised per alphabet letters, but seems to be offline at the moment.

Chris Schoneveld
June 1, 2013 12:07 pm

Wouldn’t one expect also an increase in atmospheric oxygen? After all that’s what plants emit in the process.

Werner Brozek
June 1, 2013 2:33 pm

Chris Schoneveld says:
June 1, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Wouldn’t one expect also an increase in atmospheric oxygen? After all that’s what plants emit in the process.
The problem is that this is not the only thing that is happening. By burning fossil fuels, we use up far more O2 than the extra O2 that plants produce. But the total amounts are totally insignificant anyway. If CO2 goes up from 0.03% to 0.04% and oxygen goes down from 20.96% to 20.95%, who cares? (It is not quite this simple, but close enough to give the relative importance of oxygen change.)

Dr. Lurtz
June 1, 2013 3:54 pm

Shouldn’t we have a CO2 model first??
/sarc

Chris Schoneveld
June 2, 2013 12:17 am

Thanks Werner, that makes a lot of sense. i couldn’t be bothered doing the sums but the “sequestering” (ha ha) of oxygen by the burning of fossil fuels would indeed far outway the extra oxygen produced by the increase of greenery.

Mike M
June 2, 2013 2:20 am

Phil – At issue is the minimum amount of water lost in transpiration as a function of stomata count – not stoichiometry. And as Beng pointed out there are plenty of studies showing healthy growth increases for trees from elevated CO2.

johnmarshall
June 2, 2013 2:45 am

Phil.
the extra atmospheric CO2 reduces the plants transpiration which means less water is needed for growth so the extra CO2 increases the efficiency of the photosynthesis.
See http://www.co2science.org

chris y
June 2, 2013 6:05 am

Lars P. says-
“…as Freeman Dyson said : at least 15% of our food is due to the increase in CO2.
For 7 billion humans that is food for 1 billion!”
I decided to adopt the EPA estimate of around $7M as the value of an avoided human death. This money is often claimed to pay for renewable energy schemes or justify spending billions on pollution control schemes.
If global emissions are approximately 30 billion tonnes CO2 per year, then 30 tonnes per year CO2 emissions keeps one person fed. At the EPA’s $7M value per fed person, apparently CO2 emitters can collect on $7,000 Trillion over the average life of about 70 years. Or equivalently, the CO2 rebate should be about $7,000,000/(30*70) = $3333 per tonne CO2. This is a rebate that acknowledges just one of the positive contributions of using fossil fuels.
It explains why Ocophobes (people who are fearful of OCO, aka CO2) never want to discuss the benefits of CO2 emissions.

Craig Moore
June 2, 2013 9:48 am

Seems to be a breath of fresh air for Treebeard and the Ents.

June 8, 2013 1:58 am

Why do they assume this is only happening on land?
What’s happening with seaweed and phytoplankton?