Carbon sequestration driver: Spiders, why did it have to be spiders?

Cyrtophora
Cyrtophora (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

New study shows predators affect the carbon cycle

A new study shows that the predator-prey relationship can affect the flow of carbon through an ecosystem. This previously unmeasured influence on the environment may offer a new way of looking at biodiversity management and carbon storage for climate change.

The study, conducted by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, comes out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It looks at the relationship between grasshoppers and spiders—herbivores and predators in the study’s food chain—and how it affects the movement of carbon through a grassland ecosystem. Carbon, the basic building block of all organic tissue, moves through the food chain at varying speeds depending on whether it’s being consumed or being stored in the bodies of plants. However, this pathway is seldom looked at in terms of specific animal responses like fear from predation.

“We’re discovering that predators are having important effects on shaping the make-up of ecosystems,” says Dr. Oswald Schmitz, professor of ecology and one of the co-authors of the study. “But we’ve not really spent a lot of time measuring how that translates into other functions like nutrient cycling and recycling.”

The researchers manipulated the food chains of grassland ecosystem to see how the levels of carbon would change over time. Dr. Schmitz and his team created several controlled ecosystems: some that contained only native grasses and herbs, others that had plants and an herbivore grasshopper, and some others that had plants and herbivores along with a carnivore spider species—all three tiers of the food chain. In addition, a form of traceable carbon dioxide was injected into sample cages covered with Plexiglas, which allowed the team to track the carbon levels by periodically taking leaf, root, and dead animal samples.

The study found that the presence of spiders drove up the rate of carbon uptake by the plants by about 1.4 times more than when just grasshoppers were present and by 1.2 more times than when no animals were present. It was also revealed that the pattern of carbon storage in the plants changed when both herbivores and carnivores were present. The grasshoppers apparently were afraid of being eaten by the spiders and consumed less plant matter when the predators were around. The grasshoppers also shifted towards eating more herbs instead of grass under fearful scenarios.

At the same time, the grasses stored more carbon in their roots in a response to being disturbed at low levels when both herbivores and carnivores were present. In cases where only herbivores were present, the plants stored less carbon overall, likely due to the more intense eating habits of the herbivores that put pressure on plants to reduce their storage and breathe out carbon more. These stress impacts, then, caused both the plants and the herbivores to change their behaviors and change the composition of their local environment.

This has significance for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. Although the study was carried out on a small scale, it could inform practices done in much larger areas. Places such as the Alaskan wilderness, for example, are home to animals that have the same predator-and-prey dynamics that drive the carbon cycle, and so protecting lands and storing carbon could be linked at the same time. Appreciating the role of predators is also important currently, given that top predators are declining at rates faster than that of many other species in global trends of biodiversity loss.

“It’s going to force some thinking about the vital roles of animals in regulating carbon,” concludes Dr. Schmitz, pointing to the fact that the UN’s body of scientific experts who study climate change don’t consider these multiplier effects in their models. “People are arguing for a paradigm change.”

###
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
42 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
johndo
June 17, 2013 6:15 pm

This study is about carbon uptake not carbon storage.
Maximum uptake (they measured it with tracers) is under the light to moderate grazing option with the grazers numbers controlled by predators. Carbon is being recycled so more goes through..
While the no grazing option may start quicker it quickly reaches the water, nutrient or light limit and stops taking more carbon up. However the no grazing version gives the maximum carbon storage option.
CSIRO Ecological Sustainability people found the “same” a decade ago measuring plant biodiversity which is maximum under light to moderate grazing.
While it may be useful additional proof that complex systems are more productive, the reference to carbon storage and “climate change” is just a red herring to get more attention!

Janice Moore
June 17, 2013 9:21 pm

“… significant only as a pretext for the expansion of social and political control.” [Dave Wendt at 3:59PM today]
Precisely.
To wit: “… ecosystem management … ” AND
“… and so protecting lands and storing carbon could be linked … ”
Sounds like a prelude to a government takings (of oil/mineral rights).
First we couldn’t drill in the ANWR because caribou might have to run fifty feet to the right. Now, we might step on a spider and accidentally kill it.
************************************************************
Stan Stendera (re: “Fortunately my beloved Libby doesn’t know about her. … “)
Uh, oh.
(from phone call this evening to yours truly — oh, yes, we women stick together. #[;)] — as best as I could recall it)
Libby: Hello, Janice? What’s this I see about an ENORMOUS spider in Stanley’s studio?
[you see, Stan, she DOES go on WUWT and reads what you write…. heh, heh, heh….]
Janice: Oh. Ah, weeelll…. I don’t think it will hurt you… . If you see it, just pound on the floor next to it and it will run away and hide. It just wants to —-
L: I DON’T CARE!! Whatareyousomekindofanaturefreakorsomething?! Spiders like that could run and hide ANYWHERE!!!!!!
J: You’re right. That’s why I smash them if I find them inside the house… . But, Libby, Stan really likes this spider. I think it’s like, well a pet or something. Just don’t go into the studio.
L: Oh, I’ll do better than that… .
So… Stan, re: Schmidt Achtung! May want to tell the little fella to lie low for awhile… .
BTW: Not sure you read it, but THANK YOU, SO MUCH for your kind, MUCH-needed, words of encouragement the other day. (I left a thank you on the thread about no more snow in CA mountains).
*******************************************************************************
And, here’s “an engineer’s take” (Ronald D. Voisin in June 14, 2013 thread, in Summary)
“***
6. The current spike in atmospheric CO2 would most likely be larger than now observed if human beings had never evolved. The additional CO2 contribution from insects and microbes (and mammalia for that matter) would most likely have produced a greater current spike in atmospheric CO2.”
[See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/14/an-engineers-take-on-climate-change-2/#more-88092%5D

Mike Bromley the Kurd near the Green Line
June 17, 2013 10:30 pm

The Stupid…..Hurts….aggggggggggggh….aggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggh!!!!

stan stendera
June 17, 2013 11:12 pm

Yes Janice, I read it and can’t wait to show it to Libby who does know about Schmidt in spite of what I said above. A little commenters license? Schmidt has also disappeared since the bugs disappeared.

johanna
June 17, 2013 11:19 pm

“We’re discovering that predators are having important effects on shaping the make-up of ecosystems,” says Dr. Oswald Schmitz, professor of ecology and one of the co-authors of the study.
—————————————————–
He’s just figuring that out? A Professor of Ecology, in 2013? Oh, my.
And yes, another “study” (like the silly aquarium ones that pretend to simulate the ocean) which ignores 99% of the interactions that occur in the real, vastly complex ecosystem they are looking at.
PS – Praying Mantis are my favourite garden predators. But when I see all the insects caught in spiderwebs in summer, I am thankful for them, even if they are not easy to like.

johnmarshall
June 18, 2013 2:45 am

This is interesting but not unexpected. The problem is that these scientists will want to manipulate an area to confirm their data then enlarge that area to include huge swathes of a country to try to increase carbon sequestration which is not needed. Any interference in the environment is to be deplored since serious unintended consequences are never known therefore not taken into account.
Let nature take its course, Do not interfere.

Gary Pearse
June 18, 2013 5:36 am

Doing field work in Tanzania, I startled a small group of giraffes. A calf quickly suckled its mother, several of the adults defecated and then they all took off. I guess some carbon got used up.
Anyway, how significant is 1.2 and 1.4 more carbon and the difference between them? Did they repeat the experiment many times? Were the plants all the same size, stage, seed development onset..?. Was there variability in the size, metabolism, activity of the grasshopper, spider? Did they have a dozen terrariums? Steve McIntyre? Wm Briggs? what do you say about such a piece of work. I think 1.2/1.4 verification must require 5 to 10 repeats.

michael hart
June 18, 2013 6:09 am

“The grasshoppers apparently were afraid of being eaten by the spiders…”

Judging by the amount of noise they make, they are clearly not afraid of being eaten by the birds.

Patrick
June 18, 2013 6:18 am

“It’s going to force some thinking about the vital roles of animals in regulating carbon,” concludes Dr. Schmitz, pointing to the fact that the UN’s body of scientific experts who study climate change don’t consider these multiplier effects in their MODELS. “People are arguing for a paradigm change.”
What multiplier effect? This study seems to be garbage!

beng
June 18, 2013 7:51 am

I don’t like spiders and snakes.
And that ain’t what it takes — to affect the climate.
(Actually, I don’t mind ’em at all)

Steve Keohane
June 18, 2013 8:02 am

Stephen Rasey says:
June 17, 2013 at 2:09 pm
given that top predators are declining at rates faster than that of many other species in global trends of biodiversity loss.
Look in the mirror, guys. WE are the top preedators — and we are hardly in decline.

Yes, I wanted to say people are predators too!

littlepeaks
June 18, 2013 8:30 am

I hate grasshoppers. They’re impossible to eradicate and they destroy gardens. A few years ago, a huge spider made a web in our hedges. Every day,when I came home from work, I would feed him a nice juicy grasshopper. The spider would wrap him up in webbing, and leisurely feed on him. After a week or so, the spider would no longer eat the grasshoppers, but go hide in the corner of the web. About a week after that, the spider disappeared. Don’t know if I overfed him and he “popped” or what.

DennisA
June 18, 2013 8:59 am

And who is the director of this august establishment? Click the link……
http://environment.yale.edu/profile/pachauri/

oeman50
June 18, 2013 9:42 am

At least the author got to do what he really wanted, which was to study spiders. All he had to do was mutter a few incantations about the climate and it got all paid for. I saw this exact same thing on a show a couple of years ago, it might have been Nova. Scientists were studying the geometric distribution of plants and their mass and relating that to fractals. At the very end, they measured the carbon content of a couple of leaves and said a few words about “climate change.” It was obvious their real intent was the former, not the latter.

jayhd
June 18, 2013 11:04 am

Unless I missed something, the researchers did not measure the “carbon” stored by the living herbivores, carnivores or the waste products of both. Neither are there any measurements showing atmospheric CO2 changes for the differing scenarios. Whenever a study uses the term “carbon” to refer to carbon dioxide, my BS meter pegs out. “Scientists” who use this term are automatically showing their bias, and any conclusions they may come to are most probably incorrect.

Janice Moore
June 18, 2013 12:44 pm

“Whenever a study uses the term “carbon” to refer to carbon dioxide, my BS meter pegs out.” jayhd]
Well said!
Aaaand, whenever a Puppet in Chief says that little kids with asthma should just be given “a breathalyzer” [D’oh!bama, 2008]…. I KNOW why he won’t let anyone see his school grades!

Brian H
June 19, 2013 12:07 am

“breathe out carbon more”? Plants only breathe carbon in. It’s food. They breathe out oxygen.