Warmist, document thief, and water expert Peter Gleick must be terribly conflicted by this news from USDA.
Trees Using Water More Efficiently as Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Rises
DURHAM, NH, July 10, 2013 – A study by scientists with the U.S. Forest Service, Harvard University and partners suggests that trees are responding to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by becoming more efficient at using water.
The study, “Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise,” was published on-line today in the journal Nature. Dave Hollinger, a plant physiologist with the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research Station, is a co-author with lead author Trevor Keenan of Harvard University and colleagues from The Ohio State University, Indiana University, and the Institute of Meteorology and Climate in Germany. The article is available at: http://www.nature.com/nature
“Working with others, the Forest Service is developing knowledge that is essential to maintaining healthy, sustainable forests in a changing climate,” said Michael T. Rains, Director of the Northern Research Station. “We are striving to be at the forefront of delivering sound climate science to the public.”
Terrestrial plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, a process that is accompanied by the loss of water vapor from leaves. The ratio of water loss to carbon gain, or water-use efficiency, is a key characteristic of ecosystem function that is central to the global cycles of water, energy and carbon.
Scientists analyzed direct, long-term measurements of whole-ecosystem carbon and water exchange and found a substantial increase in water-use efficiency in temperate and boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere over the past two decades.
“Our analysis suggests that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide is having a direct and unexpectedly strong influence on ecosystem processes and biosphere-atmosphere interactions in temperate and boreal forests,” Hollinger said.
How efficient trees are in using water has implications for ecosystem function, services and feedbacks to the climate system. These include enhanced timber yields and improved water availability, which could partially offset the effects of future droughts. However, reduced evapotranspiration, or the combination of evaporation and plant transpiration from the land to the atmosphere, resulting from higher water-use efficiency could lead to higher air temperatures, decreased humidity, and decreased recycling of continental precipitation. This could cause increased continental freshwater runoff, along with drought in parts of the world that rely on water transpired in other regions.
Scientists analyzed data from seven sites in the Midwest and Northeastern United States that are part of the AmeriFlux network including the Forest Service’s Bartlett Experimental Forest in New Hampshire and the Howland Cooperating Experimental Forest in Maine and expanded the analysis to 14 additional forested sites in temperate and boreal regions. . Flux towers at these sites measure fluctuations in carbon dioxide uptake and water loss. The Northern Research Station operates flux towers at five experimental forests; in addition to the Bartlett and Howland Forests this work is continuing at the Silas Little Experimental Forest in New Jersey, the Marcell Experimental Forest in Grand Rapids, Minn., and the Baltimore Long-term Ecological Research Site.
The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency has either a direct or indirect role in stewardship of about 80 percent of our nation’s forests; 850 million acres including 100 million acres of urban forests where most Americans live. The mission of the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station is to improve people’s lives and help sustain the natural resources in the Northeast and Midwest through leading-edge science and effective information delivery.
“We are striving to be at the forefront of delivering sound climate science to the public.”
Well, they are delivering something, and seem to be striving mightily to be the first to deliver it.
Might be useful as fertilizer I suppose.
My “Oh, but” greenie friend can’t accept the fact that all plants seem to do so much better with CO2 and when I made that point, she said: “Oh, but strangler figs can grow faster and cause more harm to old- growth trees in the tropics, therefore, we need to suppress CO2.” (paraphrased, of course) My greenie friend only had to believe that she was saving something from “injustice” and she became the immovable rock upon which all logic and reason will crash with no effect.The master manipulators are well aware of this phenomenon of human behavior and exploit it to great effect.
More efficient use of water by plants and trees will lead to higher water levels in lakes and rivers (since the trees aren’t using as much), leading to (potentially) MORE evaporation, lower air temperatures, and probably not much change whatsoever in humidity. There, fixed that for them.
Credit to Rocky Road in his above comment for coming up with much of this as well.
Old news for any botanist worth one’s salt. One would think that the FOREST SERVICE would maybe have been employing BOTANISTS along with all of the bureaucratic hacks.
1,000 g. CO2 670 g. sugar
MORE CO2 = MORE SUGAR
This was taught in high school Vocational Agriculture back in the early 90’s as a matter of established fact. Every bit regarding elevated CO2 reducing water needs, reduced humidity from less ET from the plants, low atmospheric CO2 meant that the price of dropping dry ice in a greenhouse may be less expensive than forcing drafts with fans.
Rehashed and reconstituted data here. It’s a mix tape designed to further funding and support the party line rather than be a point of interest to botanists.
But wait! There’s more. With less water limitation, trees can make more wood, pulling more CO2 out of the air. It’s worse than we thought!
As PRD and others have said, it is astonishing that this is regarded as news. Horticulturalists have been using this information for many decades to grow things in greenhouses. I learned it in a biology class at school in prehistoric times.
I think in the future, solar will be something similar to natural photosynthesis, where either produces electricity immediately or liquid fuel when not needed. But, the irony will be that high atmospheric CO2 levels will be needed for it to become economical.
Kaboom says at July 11, 2013 at 8:57 am
Actually, that makes perfect sense.
However, as the effects will be primarily over the most vegetated areas (like rainforests which are called rainforests for a reason, there will be a negative feedback. If the clouds aren’t enough to allow for plant growth then the youngest plants with the smallest root systems will be the first to decline.
Then a new equilibrium will be found. And when an old plant dies the younger plants will get their chance.
It’s a good first study but more thought is required.
Also, the circumstances over steppes/prairie may be different. A fun thought experiment for someone.
Is one missing a thought process here ?
more CO2 leads to more efficient water usage.
then the darn trees grow faster and bigger and spread, as per latest report into greening the world, so should the issue be decided upon the difference bertween reduction in water usage per area of leaf and the growth in the increase in the area of total leaf.
What happens when the trees shed their leaves in the autumn ?
jono1066 says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:46 pm
The seven sites studied included both deciduous & evergreen trees.
Leaf loss helps deciduous trees survive cold, dry winter air. Trees lose water through their leaves’ stomata. In winter, trees don’t get enough water to replace what they would lose via their leaves. The trees would die in winter if they didn’t seal off the leaves to keep water out of them in the fall.
M Courtney says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Grasslands should also use water more efficiently under higher CO2 concentrations, particularly C3 photosynthesizing plants. Grass leaves have stomata, too, so the more rapidly they can take up the CO2 they need from the air, the less time do they need to keep their water-losing stomata open.
This is news?
Note to self: read the whole thing before posting comment! The spin, it burns.
I don’t know if you know but the Dutch have planned a completely crazy deal to import wood from georgia to be fired up in coal power plants 1/3 coals, 2/3 prime Georgia forest. They have backed this plan up with billions of subsidies so that will buy them a lot of tree’s.
Most of the Dutch, should they know about it, don’t like this and the same I suppose goes for the American people.
Never thought I would support a protest initiative like this (please translate with google): http://climategate.nl/2013/07/11/amerikaanse-actiegroep-dogwood-alliance-tegen-milieucriminaliteit-nederlandse-overheid/
But if we start burning our biosphere to save the planet, based on a legal but in my view a criminal government scheme for all the wrong reasons, I think something has gone terribly wrong.
So please hit the alarm drum on this and tell the Dutch Government they are making a big, big mistake.
The next to make this move could be China and if they do we’re out of forests in a decade.
So, The attempts by Climate Fraud Artists, like Obama, are actually hurting the environment, reducing the efficiency of the Flora and reducing crop outputs per acre! Thus causing more famine!
http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com
God Bless America!
‘us drought worsens’
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/6_week.gif
with regards to badmoon11
blackadderthe4th,
Wake up. You are a victim of self-serving government propaganda.
You really need to start thinking for yourself. Precipitation in “drought” areas is 600% of normal. Where’s the drought?
Where’s the hockey stick? I don’t see the hockey stick. This can’t be real science.
As a consulting forester in my own business helping landowners protect and manage their forests, “enhancing timber yields” is one of our prime objectives. While I appreciate this study’s recognition of the basic fact that the slight increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases forest growth, once again they have to qualify it with the lower humidity and precipitation nonsense. But I guess they have to do this to keep the grants coming. By the way, the biggest threats to our native forests are invasive plants and insects as well as destructive high-grade logging (taking the best and leaving the rest). So I would suggest it would be far more productive if the forest researchers concentrated on those issues rather than the theory of CO2 catastrophism.
@ur momisugly dbstealey says:
July 11, 2013 at 3:12 pm
‘Wake up. You are a victim of self-serving government propaganda’, so who is Mr Paranoia then? Because if they are lying, they’ll be found out! Pretty damn quick!
blackadderthe4th,
You can decide if they’re exaggerating the situation by studying the links I posted. Keep in mind that their job security would be jeopardized if they kept saying that there was nothing to be concerned about.
And who is “badmoon11”?
This is by far the best observation about the published result and commentary:
“However, reduced evapotranspiration, or the combination of evaporation and plant transpiration from the land to the atmosphere, resulting from higher water-use efficiency could lead to higher air temperatures, decreased humidity, and decreased recycling of continental precipitation. This could cause increased continental freshwater runoff, along with drought in parts of the world that rely on water transpired in other regions.”
If the rate of the return of precipitated water to the atmosphere goes down, the atmosphere will get dryer, and hold less heat. Local daytime surface temperatures may indeed rise from the decreased evaporative cooling, as in a desert, but if there is less water vapor overhead at night, much more longwave radiation will escape into space.
This is an example of a result that directly undermines CAGW theory, which in order to be published needed to obfuscate that otherwise obvious conclusion.
Miketheforester said, inter alia:
But I guess they have to do this to keep the grants coming. By the way, the biggest threats to our native forests are invasive plants and insects as well as destructive high-grade logging (taking the best and leaving the rest). So I would suggest it would be far more productive if the forest researchers concentrated on those issues rather than the theory of CO2 catastrophism.
———————–
Mike, thanks for your comment. Could you explain a bit further about your statement that selective logging (“taking the best and leaving the rest”) somehow threatens native forests?
“The mission of the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station is to improve people’s lives and help sustain the natural resources in the Northeast and Midwest through leading-edge science and effective information delivery.”
===============
Cool, we are listening to every word.