From a long line of missing things in climate models and the University of Texas at Austin:
Symbiotic fungi inhabiting plant roots have major impact on atmospheric carbon, scientists say
AUSTIN, Texas — Microscopic fungi that live in plants’ roots play a major role in the storage and release of carbon from the soil into the atmosphere, according to a University of Texas at Austin researcher and his colleagues at Boston University and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. The role of these fungi is currently unaccounted for in global climate models.
Some types of symbiotic fungi can lead to 70 percent more carbon stored in the soil.
“Natural fluxes of carbon between the land and atmosphere are enormous and play a crucial role in regulating the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, in turn, Earth’s climate,” said Colin Averill, lead author on the study and graduate student in the College of Natural Sciences at UT Austin. “This analysis clearly establishes that the different types of symbiotic fungi that colonize plant roots exert major control on the global carbon cycle, which has not been fully appreciated or demonstrated until now.”
“This research is not only relevant to models and predictions of future concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but also challenges the core foundation in modern biogeochemistry that climate exerts major control over soil carbon pools,” added Adrien Finzi, co-investigator and professor of biology at Boston University.
Averill, Finzi and Benjamin Turner, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, published their research this week in Nature.
Soil contains more carbon than both the atmosphere and vegetation combined, so predictions about future climate depend on a solid understanding of how carbon cycles between the land and air.
Plants remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis in the form of carbon dioxide. Eventually the plant dies, sheds leaves, or loses a branch or two, and that carbon is added to the soil. The carbon remains locked away in the soil until the remains of the plant decompose, when soil-dwelling microbes feast on the dead plant matter and other organic detritus. That releases carbon back into the air.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: This Eastern Hemlock stands at Harvard Forest.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
One of the limits that both the plants and the soil-dwelling microbes share is the availability of nitrogen, an essential nutrient for all life. Most plants have a symbiotic relationship with mycorrhizal fungi, which help extract nitrogen and nutrients from the soil and make that nitrogen available for the plants to use. Recent studies have suggested that plants and their fungi compete with the soil microbes for the nitrogen available in the soil and that this competition reduces decomposition in the soil.
There are two major types of the symbiotic fungi, ecto- and ericoid mycorrhizal (EEM) fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. EEM fungi produce nitrogen-degrading enzymes, which allows them to extract more nitrogen from the soil than the AM fungi extract.
Examining data from across the globe, Averill and his colleagues found that where plants partner with EEM fungi, the soil contains 70 percent more carbon per unit of nitrogen than in locales where AM fungi are the norm.
The EEM fungi allow the plants to compete with the microbes for available nitrogen, thus reducing the amount of decomposition and lowering the amount of carbon released back into the atmosphere.
“This study is showing that trees and decomposers are really connected via these mycorrhizal fungi, and you can’t make accurate predictions about future carbon cycling without thinking about how the two groups interact. We need to think of these systems holistically,” said Averill.
The researchers found that this difference in carbon storage was independent of and had a much greater effect than other factors, including the amount of plant growth, temperature and rainfall.
Averill is a student in the ecology, evolution and behavior graduate program in the lab of Christine Hawkes, associate professor in the Department of Integrative Biology.
Additional contact: Lee Clippard, media relations, University of Texas at Austin, 512-232-0675, clippard@austin.utexas.edu
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:03 am
“The exact data over the past 50+ years from Mauna Loa and the emissions (from EIA) are here in graph form up to 2011 (the last year of the published emissions):”
————–
And here is a really, really purty graph that you can use to get the exact data for your next published scientific paper, to wit: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“The ocean surface is another fast sink, but limited to 10% of the change in the atmosphere, due to the buffer/Revelle factor.”
————–
HA, now you have morphed from being utterly silly to being down right ridiculous. Was that a severely miseducated statement or just blowing smoke at me?
Educate yourself, Ferdinand, as to why your “10% limitation” is FUBAR, to wit:
“Natural Acidity of Rainwater
Pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral); however, natural, unpolluted rainwater actually has a pH of about 5.6 (acidic). The acidity of rainwater comes from the natural presence of three substances (CO2, NO, and SO2) found in the troposphere. As is seen in Table I, carbon dioxide (CO2) is present in the greatest concentration and therefore contributes the most to the natural acidity of rainwater.”
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Water/FreshWater/acidrain.html
Of course you will probably claim that all the CO2 (carbonic acid) that is in the rainwater that falls on the oceans every year (and every place else) ….. has all been measured and accounted for …. and is thus ignored because it doesn’t amount to enough to worry about.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“The ppmv is CO2, not C. You need to divide the 5 GtC by 12/44. But the real ratio for the current atmosphere is 2.12 GtC/ppmv.”
————–
I don’t need to do anything because we both know what my equations and commentary were stating ….. and if that was the only “fault” you could find with said then apparently you agree with 99 32/44ths of what I posted as being factual.
Ferdinand, since we are on the subject of CO2, …… I wasa thunking that youse might enjoy reading a short commentary that I penned several years ago, … so enjoy, to wit:
——————–
The CAGW secret they don’t want you to know.
There is a nasty ole Anthropogenic Global Warming secret about CO2 that the proponents of CAGW are not telling you. Surprise, surprise, there are actually two (2) different types of CO2.
There is both a naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a hybrid CO2 molecule that has a different physical property. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits the CAGWers to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.
The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.
Thus, said H-pyron is very important to all Climate Scientists that are proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) because it provides them an important scientific tool that serves two (2) important functions: 1) it permits them to measure the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is “human caused”, and 2) it permits the CAGWers to calculate the number of degrees increase in Average Temperatures (monthly, yearly, globally) that are directly attributed to human activity.
As an added note, oftentimes you may hear someone refer to those two (2) types of CO2 as “urban CO2” and/or ”rural CO2” because the CAGWers can’t deny the fact that “it is always hotter in the city”.
And there you have it folks, the rest of the story, their secret scientific tool has been revealed to you.
Yours truly, Eritas Fubar
Bart says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:44 am
“Bart used two different scales for similar variables in his graph”
So did Ferdinand, implicitly, in the similar plot he produced which he did not link to here. He just didn’t label the other axis.
Which one was that?
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:57 am
And here is a really, really purty graph that you can use to get the exact data for your next published scientific paper, to wit: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
I have no problems to admit that I have made an error if you show it. But by refering to data which has nothing to do with what is said by me, you make yourself impossible to believe… The geocarb data are not exact data, they are based on proxies with large error bars and what happened 60 million years ago and before has nothing to do with what happens today.
You have already found the Mauna Loa data, here is the source for the emissions, which are based on fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency for the different fuels:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8
HA, now you have morphed from being utterly silly to being down right ridiculous. Was that a severely miseducated statement or just blowing smoke at me?
If you never have heard of a buffer solution, you may ask it at someone who has studied chemistry, or you even can find it on Wiki… Fresh water has a very low solubility for CO2, because a CO2 solution is slightly acidic and that prevents further uptake of CO2. Seawater is slightly basic and can contain about ten times more CO2 in different forms than fresh water. That is the Revelle or buffer factor. Even so, a change of 30% in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will give not more than 3% change in total carbon in seawater. Just try it yourself: make a saturated solution of soda or baking soda and see what happens if you add some acid (vinegar will do the job).
For a background chemical explanation of the Revelle factor, see:
http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/staff/gpk/Teaching-undergrad/es427/Exam%200405%20Revision/Ocean-chemistry.pdf
carbon dioxide (CO2) is present in the greatest concentration and therefore contributes the most to the natural acidity of rainwater.”
If you should have calculated the total amount of CO2 dissolved in fresh water (as I did), you should have known that that is about negligible in the carbon balance. The solubility of CO2 in fresh water at 1 bar CO2 is 3.3 g/kg at 0°C. See:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
But CO2 is 0.0004 bar partial pressure in the atmosphere, that means that at equilibrium 1.32 mg/kg CO2 is dissolved in rainwater at 0°C. Less at height and less if warmer, even less if stronger acids like SOx and NOx are present.
As 1 kg rainwater needs 400 m3 saturated air, the uptake of 1.32 mg CO2 from that volume simply is unmeasurable. If the 1 kg rainwater falls on earth and all water evaporates, setting all CO2 free, that increases the CO2 level of the local 1 m3 of air with less than 1 ppmv… Again about negligible.
But as the total amounts of water circulating through the atmosphere and precipitation are enormous, there is some effect in dissolving (carbonate and silicate) rocks. But even that needs millions of years to dig the nice caves one can find in a lot of places…
and if that was the only “fault” you could find with said then apparently you agree with 99 32/44ths of what I posted as being factual.
That small error renders the rest of your calculation void…
The story about the “human” CO2 is nice, but “human” CO2 can be distinguished from “natural” CO2 because it is lower in 13C/12C ratio and it doesn’t contain any 14C anymore…
Dear Mr. Englebeen,
You have forgotten … that I said this of you: Englebeen who is a fine person, … .” ( Jan. 9, at 7:08pm)
I admire Bart and Murry Salby and others because their fine minds have presented in a lucid manner:
1) evidence that you have yet to refute; and
2) reasoning that I can, for all my averageness, see is impeccably logical.
In short, Bart and Salby, et. al., have persuaded me and you have not.
You have still not explained away this fact:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Incidentally, that one can explain such a topic to a non-science person like I proves one has mastered that topic, for only a master of a subject can teach it to an “average reader” like myself.
Oliver Cromwell (1650)
You, being a scientist, know that this is what all genuine scientists do: remain open to the possibility that they may be mistaken. No one will think the less of you as a man for admitting a mistake, dear Englebeen. On the contrary, it would elicit from the hearts of anyone whose opinion is worth anything, great admiration, for, only a man of great heart and broad shoulders and shining integrity has the courage to stand up and say before the world, “I was wrong.”
Your WUWT truth-in-science ally (generally speaking),
Janice
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At January 12, 2014 at 11:50 am you say
You know that is not true so why say it?
It is not worthy of you.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 12, 2014 at 11:50 am
“here is the source for the emissions, which are based on fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency for the different fuels:”
————–
Ferdinand, the geocarb data AS YOU SEE IT on that graph I provided the link to ….. is probably 300+% more accurate than …… your sources for the world’s emissions of CO2 that are based on fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency for the different fuels.
Ferdinand, here is just an inkling of how enormous your problem is at trying to calculate world wide human emissions of CO2 vi the above said. To wit:
“Pennsylvania Fossil Fuel Subsidies: An Overview
There are exemptions for the use of fossil fuels, such as exempting gasoline purchase from Sales and Use Tax, which make these fuels more attractive by lowering their costs to the consumer. There are also exemptions that benefit distributors of fossil fuels, such as exempting natural gas sales from the Gross Receipts Tax, thereby reducing the tax burden on distribution companies …”
http://www.pennfuture.org/UserFiles/File/FactSheets/Report_FossilFuelSubsidy_201112.pdf
————–
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“The story about the “human” CO2 is nice, but “human” CO2 can be distinguished from “natural” CO2 because it is lower in 13C/12C ratio ”
————–
Really now, lower? And here I was thinking that C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants. Sure they do.
And iffen they do, then you can’t distinguish human CO2 emissions in the atmosphere by a lower 13C/12C ratio because humans emit both types..
And one reason you can’t is that you don’t have any “CO2 emission figures” ….. for/from the world’s production of beer, wine and soda pop, ….. bakery goods (breads, cakes, rolls), …… or cheeses and other dairy products, …… all of which are human CO2 emitters.
And the second reason is, C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants …… but you don’t have any production figures to know how much of each type that humans produce.
The C3 plants that humans produce include: beans, rice, wheat, potatoes, woody trees, lawn grass,
The C4 plants that humans produce include: maize (corn), sugar cane, millet, sorghum, lawn grass, feedstock grasses and desert plants.
Reference: http://www.uni.edu/bergv/pp/unit_2/pp092-11.html
“Forty-six percent of grasses are C4 and together account for 61% of C4 species. These include the food crops maize, sugar cane, millet, and sorghum”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
————–
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 13, 2014 at 11:23 am
There are exemptions for the use of fossil fuels, such as exempting gasoline purchase from Sales and Use Tax
Which doesn’t say that the fiscal people don’t know how much is sold… But of course, there are under-the-counter sales. But that does only add to what is burned. Thus the probability of underestimating human emissions from fossil fuel sales is much higher than overestimating it. I haven’t heard of anybody who paid taxes for fuel he/she didn’t buy…
Really now, lower? And here I was thinking that C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants. Sure they do.
Well let’s count the bodies:
oceans, deep: 0 to +1 per mil δ13C
oceans, surface: +1 to +5 per mil δ13C and fast declining
atmosphere: -8 per mil δ13C and fast declining
fossil fuels: average mix: -24 per mil δ13C
C3 plants: average mix: -24 per mil δ13C
C4 plants: average mix: -12 per mil δ13C
current plants mix: about -22 per mil δ13C
Thus any release from the oceans (including the water-air border fractionation) would increase the δ13C ratio in the atmosphere.
It is impossible to make a differentiation between fossil and recent plant releases on the base of the δ13C ratio, as even C4 plants would decrease the δ13C of the atmosphere. But it is possible to know how much CO2 the whole biosphere adds to or substracts from the atmosphere: the oxygen balance.
The oxygen balance shows that the whole biosphere, which includes beer, wine and backery goods, human breath, growing and decaying C3 and C4 plants,… is a net sink for CO2: ~1 GtC/year.
That means that all C3 plants and all C4 plants absorb relative more 12CO2 than 13CO2 (C4 less than C3, but both more than what is in the atmosphere), leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere.
But the atmosphere (and the ocean surface layer and all plants on earth) show a declining δ13C level in ratio to the burning of fossil fuels… Which thus isn’t from the oceans and not from baking goods or C3 or C4 plants growing and decaying or eaten…
If not from humans, then where is it coming from?
richardscourtney says:
January 13, 2014 at 11:08 am
You know that is not true so why say it?
That the 14C content of fossil fuels is zero is true, because much too old. Recent plants contain recent incorporated 14C, so do their users (microbes, insects, animals), detectable up to 60,000 years. The oceans return slightly depleted 14CO2 as ~1000 years old.
The 13C/12C ratio is explained in the reaction to Samuel C Cogar…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thanks for your reply to me in your post at January 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm.
We have discussed the 13C/12C ratio on WUWT in the past. Anyone wanting to see that can use the WUWT Search facility for it.
I refuse to get involved in discussions with Samuel C Cogar. I have twice made that mistake: he lacks both the integrity and the logic which you display.
I agree about the 14C isotope information but don’t see how that is pertinent. The anthropogenic 14C was released by nuclear bomb tests and is ‘long gone’.
Richard
Janice Moore says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:51 am
You have still not explained away this fact:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
I don’t need to explain that: In my opinion there is little effect of more CO2 on temperature and that natural variability (PDO) has a larger influence. I think that we agree on that.
But that is also one of the reasons that I don’t think that Salby and Bart are right: if the temperature is flat, there is no reason that the CO2 levels still go up unabated. They should go down, as the total CO2 level in the atmosphere increases and thus pushes more CO2 into the (deep) oceans and vegetation, except if humans are the cause of the increase…
Further such a non-human increase must come from somewhere. There are two main fast sources: vegetation and oceans. Both can’t be the cause. Volcanoes? Not likely: even the Pinatubo did give a drop in CO2 increase because more CO2 was absorbed (cooling, increased plant growth?) than was released and for most volcanoes the δ13C is too high…
And I have not the least problems with admitting that I made a mistake. But as far as I can see, I haven’t made any…
richardscourtney says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:38 pm
I agree about the 14C isotope information but don’t see how that is pertinent. The anthropogenic 14C was released by nuclear bomb tests and is ‘long gone’.
Richard, sad to hear your wife has been ill and thanks for the info about Samuel.
The lack of 14C content has already been used to make a differentiation between the origins of soot contamination from fossil or recent fuels and it was used to detect how much CO2 is released from fossil fuels around towns (Salt Lake City), in combination with the changes in 13C/12C ratio…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:57 pm
“…. and thanks for the info about Samuel.”
————–
AAAWWW, the British Degreed elitists are ganging up on poor ole Samuel C.
Kinda reminds me of that bunch from ICL Ltd. when they sent their managers over here to take over control of Cogar Corporation, Information Systems Division after purchasing it from Singer Corporation.
But anyway, ……
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:23 pm
“The oxygen balance shows that the whole biosphere, which includes beer, wine and backery goods, human breath, growing and decaying C3 and C4 plants,… is a net sink for CO2: ~1 GtC/year.”
————–
Explain to me what the “oxygen balance” has to do with calculating the “net sink” for CO2 given the fact that, to wit:
“Evaporation and condensation are the two processes that most influence the ratio of heavy oxygen to light oxygen in the oceans. Water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Water molecules containing light oxygen evaporate slightly more readily than water molecules containing a heavy oxygen atom. At the same time, water vapor molecules containing the heavy variety of oxygen condense more readily.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/
————–
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“But the atmosphere (and the ocean surface layer and all plants on earth) show a declining δ13C level in ratio to the burning of fossil fuels… Which thus isn’t from the oceans and not from baking goods or C3 or C4 plants growing and decaying or eaten…
If not from humans, then where is it coming from?”
————–
Now Ferdinand, I was justa thinking …. that prior to the advent of the Industrial Revolution the Northern Hemisphere non-polar land masses were highly vegetated with massive forests of woody trees in the Temperate Zones and a mix of vegetation in the Tropic and Sub-Tropic Zones.
But that all began to change in the early 1800’s when those great forests began being “clear-cut” of their virgin timber and the sawed lumber was used to build homes and businesses locally but the majority was shipped by water and rail to build the great cities and factories for the increasing population of laborers and workers. And the land from which that timber was cut was then cleared of all tree stumps, rocks and brush and was used to raise cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, geese and horses, …… and also used to grow food to feed those animals, to feed one’s family and to feed the increasing populations in the great cities.
And that process continued well into the early 1900’s as urbanization of the cities increased and then in the mid-1900’s suburbanation of the farm land began. Said suburbanation became possible because starting in the early 1940’s the “family farms” began disappearing like snowflakes on a hot pavement and the woody trees and other greenery started growing again with gusto and the landscape has now become much “greener” with woody trees, etc., than it was pre-1940.
And the reason I am telling you this, Ferdinand, is because of what I found when searching for info concerning your “δ13C” statement, and what i found was, to wit:
“Differences in altitude are also known to affect terrestrial plant carbon isotopic signatures (δ13C) in mountain regions, since plant δ13C values at high altitudes are typically enriched (Körner et al. 1988; 1991) compared to the carbon signatures of plants from low altitudes. Soil organic matter also show enrichment in 13C with soil depth, which is suggested to be a consequence of humification and the loss of the lighter isotope (12C) via respiration, thus concentrating 13C in the soil organic matter (Kramer et al. 2003). This might be transitional to temperature and differences in decomposition. Moreover, the isotopic carbon signatures of autochthonous and allochthonous food-sources in aquatic ecosystems are generally separated, which is also reflected in the consumer community. Stable isotope analysis is therefore a useful method for determining the autotrophic or heterotrophic character of lake food webs (Karlsson et al. 2003; 2007).”
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:303212/FULLTEXT01.pdf
————–
Ferdinand, the re-growth of the forests are sequestering the C13 in the soils and their respiration is emitting the C12 back into the atmosphere ….. and that is potentially where your declining δ13C level is coming from. But what do I know, I’m not a degreed expert like the British elite.
And Ferdinand, if you want to see what some of that virgin forest looked like, …. after it was timbered, …… just click the following url jpg link. The picture was taken in Clay County, WV, circa 1910.
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1917MountainHomeinClayCounty.jpg
And ps, Ferdinand, iffen those heavy oxygen H2O molecules condense more quickly and evaporate more slowly ….. are you sure they that don’t also have a preference for the C13 atoms that are in the CO2 molocules when it comes to them absorbing it? That would cause your declining δ13C level, ……. woodn’t it, woodn’t it??
Here ya go Ferdinand, … just in case Richard Scourtney informs you that I was surely BS’ing you, to wit:
“Outside the UK, ICL’s offices around the world were mainly sales and marketing operations, with some application development for the local market. The exceptions were development and manufacturing sites arising from acquisitions, such as Utica in the United States from the Singer merger,” ….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Computers_Limited
says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:28 am
mpainter says:
January 10, 2014 at 9:17 am
You seem as one who does not allow for any possibility that the carbon cycle is not yet fully understood.
To the contrary, I am fully aware that a lot of details of the carbon cycle are not even known, let it understood. But the point is that you don’t need any detail of the carbon cycle to see that humans are the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. All you need to know is that the human emissions are larger than the increase in the atmosphere. That is what the carbon balance shows: the overall levels. Not the details. The figures (for 2011):
increase in the atmosphere = emissions + natural releases – natural sinks
4.5 GtC = 9 GtC + natural releases – natural sinks
natural releases – natural sinks = -4.5 GtC
or the natural carbon cycle has 4.5 GtC more sink than source and thus its contribution to the increase in the atmosphere is zero, nada, nothing. No need to know any individual carbon flow in or out. No need to know where the 4.5 GtC more sink than source is going to.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for your reply which proves my point.
You put : natural releases – natural sinks = -4.5 GtC
Let us take your math one step further:
natural releases = natural sinks – 4.5 GtC
By this, natural sinks swallow more than what is naturally released. Just think, in the future, as in the past, all atm CO2 was swallowed up. But no. Another error born of unwarranted assumptions. When you calculate upon nebulous quantities and incompletely understood processes, you wind up with such absurdities.