From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Researchers have some bad news for future farmers and eaters: As carbon dioxide levels rise this century, some grains and legumes will become significantly less nutritious than they are today.
The new findings are reported in the journal Nature. Eight institutions, from Australia, Israel, Japan and the United States, contributed to the analysis.
The researchers looked at multiple varieties of wheat, rice, field peas, soybeans, maize and sorghum grown in fields with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels like those expected in the middle of this century. (Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently approaching 400 parts per million, and are expected to rise to 550 ppm by 2050.)
The teams simulated high CO2 levels in open-air fields using a system called Free Air Concentration Enrichment (FACE), which pumps out, monitors and adjusts ground-level atmospheric CO2 to simulate future conditions. In this study, all other growing conditions (sunlight, soil, water, temperature) were the same for plants grown at high-CO2 and those used as controls.
The experiments revealed that the nutritional quality of a number of the world’s most important crop plants dropped in response to elevated CO2.
The study contributed “more than tenfold more data regarding both the zinc and iron content of the edible portions of crops grown under FACE conditions” than available from previous studies, the team wrote.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
“When we take all of the FACE experiments we’ve got around the world, we see that an awful lot of our key crops have lower concentrations of zinc and iron in them (at high CO2),” said University of Illinois plant biology and Institute for Genomic Biology professor Andrew Leakey, an author on the study. “And zinc and iron deficiency is a big global health problem already for at least 2 billion people.”
Zinc and iron went down significantly in wheat, rice, field peas and soybeans. Wheat and rice also saw notable declines in protein content at higher CO2.
“Across a diverse set of environments in a number of countries, we see this decrease in quality,” Leakey said.
Nutrients in sorghum and maize remained relatively stable at higher CO2 levels because these crops use a type of photosynthesis, called C4, which already concentrates carbon dioxide in their leaves, Leakey said.
“C4 is sort of a fuel-injected photosynthesis that maize and sorghum and millet have,” he said. “Our previous work here at Illinois has shown that their photosynthesis rates are not stimulated by being at elevated CO2. They already have high CO2 inside their leaves.”
More research is needed to determine how crops grown in developing regions of the world will respond to higher atmospheric CO2, Leakey said.
“It’s important that we start to do these experiments in tropical climates with tropical soils, because that’s just a terrible gap in our knowledge, given that that’s where food security is already the biggest issue,” he said.
The collaboration included researchers from Harvard University (which led the effort); Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in Beer Sheva, Israel; the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; the University of California, Davis; the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service; the National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences in Ibaraki, Japan; the University of Melbourne, Australia; the University of Arizona; the University of Pennsylvania; and The Nature Conservancy, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
I’m thinking the future mission to Mars is doomed to fail. Because the future Martians won’t be able to grow healthy fruits and veggies, in the CO2 rich atmosphere.
Turning the red planet GREEN: NASA plans to create a greenhouse garden on Mars by 2021
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2622272/Turning-red-planet-GREEN-Nasa-plans-create-greenhouse-garden-Mars-2021.html
Here’s what they say about growing conditions:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature13179_T1.html
Maybe it also depends on what country the plants are grown in.
I think there is a way to combat this endless flow of superficial half-baked “research”. Conservative think tank institutions can establish annual “Bad Science” award with nominal prizes. I don’t think researchers would think twice before publishing anything that may be caught by negative publicity of getting BS award.
Pure garbage.
Are they claiming that tomatoes grown in greenhouses with elevated CO2 are less ‘nutritious’?
I’ll bet they can afford ‘organic’ fruit and veg.
Curtains for cornflakes?
I don’t think so
Even if this was the case. Plant breeders should be able to adapt to that scenario. Another meaningless study.
Les Johnson says:
May 7, 2014 at 3:05 pm
————-
I would say spot on.
Funny how they miss the yield bit out and also is the plant more resilient to whatever nature throws – an extra bonus.
Looking at Greenhouses it seems the sweet spot is around 1200ppm and after that no big difference is seen, or maybe bang for buck it’s not worth going above this.
For iron supplementation, use cast iron cookware. And given how fast an old can will rust away outdoors, you could bury a few empties in your garden.
For zinc, have galvanized steel plumbing. At worst that’ll release zinc and iron, instead of plastic plumbing which will release the next chemicals found to be carcinogenic by the People’s Republic of Kalifornia.
Our ancient ancestors also used much galvanized cookware and equipment, as shown in historical documentaries like The Waltons, as with milk cans, pails, etc. This is acceptable with foods without high acidity which could dissolve the zinc and lead to metal poisoning.
Iron and zinc deficiencies sounds like another self-created problem of our modern scrubbed sterile stainless and plastic environments, when we were clearly designed by God and evolution for outdoor living and absorbing nutrients from the dirt on our food. We are such intelligent glorious fools!
What would the experiment’s results have looked like if the experiment was spread out from now until the middle of this century? What I’m hinting at here is what I call ‘rapid experimentation’ – giving organisms and ecosystems far less time to adapt and adjust compared to 36 years.
550ppm less nutritious but more of the little buggers I suppose.
http://youtu.be/P2qVNK6zFgE
If zinc and iron deficiencies are already a big problem, exactly how is avoiding losses of zinc and iron going to help that situation? I assume suplemental zinc and iron is the answer and that has nothing to do with this. Also, exactly HOW significantly lower iron/zinc levels are we talking about, and how dependent is the population on those sources for their iron and zinc? Until you can answer those questions, you don’t really have any idea whether these losses will have a significant effect. On the other hand, suppose CO2 levels fall below 300PPM. What happens in that case, both in terms of yield as well as iron/zinc levels. Are the projected lower iron/zinc levels due to the fact that the yield is greater and thus the chemicals are diluted? What were the yields under enhanced CO2 levels? Lots of questions.
“And zinc and iron deficiency is a big global health problem already for at least 2 billion people.”
That’s why we don’t want them to industrialize and develop their countries, get access to cheap and reliable energy, get wealthy and healthy and give them the opportunity to make choices beyond how to reach the next day.
Instead we scare them to death with global warming and CO2=pollutant BS and buy off their governments with climate justice payments, so the elites overthere will let their citizens continue to suffer and the elites in the West can make their own citizens suffer too and even pay for it.
______________
How long will it take to get rid of this nonsense? I hope I live to see the day, but I’m getting more and more pessimistic lately. The madness just gets worse and worse. It seems like it will take decades if not centuries to disappear.
The next Dark Ages are staring us in the face. Dear Lord help us all.
I suppose we will need to eat meat in order to get our iron and zinc.
So is there any indication the cause of this “problem” is anything *but* dilution due to increased growth? What is the null hypothesis to the contention that this is an actual problem and how is it addressed?
Or… is this just a load of data tangentially related to a preordained conclusion?
OK. What did maize do in the past?
Sounds great to me, just about to begin a tree planting proposal for high Vitamin C and mineral fruit trees and nut trees, just add CO2, love it, Nitrogen fixing plants to help the plant nutrients along, and a cash crop is the result. Collect carbon credits on the way too if anyone’s silly enough to offer us some?
What happens is the plant grows say 20 percent larger, yes more bio-lifem but the nutrinal values in a few instances only increases, say 12 percent. This is a win/win. You [still] have more food and more nutrients, it is just less dense in SOME plants.
Some more info below….
Reference
Duval, B.D., Blankinship, J.C., Dijkstra, P. and Hungate, B.A. 2012. CO2 effects on plant nutrient concentration depend on plant functional group and available nitrogen: a meta-analysis. Plant Ecology 213: 505-521.
Background
The authors note that atmospheric CO2 enrichment might logically be expected to lower plant nutrient concentrations (i.e., dilute them), due to the greater rate of carbohydrate production elevated CO2 concentrations induce in plants via their stimulation of the photosynthetic process, the end result of which in the case of agricultural crops has been hypothesized by Loladze (2002) to result in “hidden hunger,” i.e., more – but less nutritious – food. But is that expectation borne out by experimental studies?
What was done
In a herculean effort to find the answer to this question, Duval et al. conducted a meta-analysis of the subject that was designed to include the results of all CO2 enrichment studies of all plant nutrients that had been conducted and published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature up to the time of the commencement of their analysis. More specifically, they say that they [quantified 12 percent]. “elevated CO2 effects on leaf, stem, root, and seed concentrations of B, Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, P,S, and Zn among four plant functional groups and two levels of N fertilization,” based on 90 individual experimental analyses involving a total of 478 independent replications.
What was learned
The four U.S. researchers did indeed find that in some cases “elevated CO2 tends to lower the concentration of nutrients in plants,” but they say that in other cases they observed increased nutrient concentrations. In addition, they discovered that “the effects of elevated CO2 on mineral nutrition depend on the specific element, plant functional group, plant organ, N availability, and, in some cases, the level of CO2 enrichment.” And these complexities, in their words, “preclude a universal hypothesis strictly related to carbohydrate dilution regarding plant nutrient response to elevated CO2.” Also of great importance was their finding that when elevated CO2 did lower the nutrient concentrations of plants, most nutrients exhibited dilution that was “less than expected.”
What it means
In discussing the results of their comprehensive analysis, Duval et al. conclude that their findings “challenge the assumption that plant nutrient concentrations are generally lowered by elevated CO2 strictly on the basis of carbohydrate dilution,” thereby largely contradicting the “hidden hunger hypothesis” put forward a decade earlier by Loladze (2002).
Reference
Loladze, I. 2002. Rising atmospheric CO2 and human nutrition: toward globally imbalanced plant stoichiometry? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 457-461.
Since Soy protein inhibits absorption of iron and zinc anyway, what’s the big deal? Also, as many mention, the other grains are not significant providers of zinc and iron. Experiments already underway to develop new genetic varieties (since the late nineties) of wheat and rice which are higher in those nutrients.
Chip Knappenberger,
Thanks to the link to Craig Idso’s summary on the literature related to this. I trust him as an authentic source in this area. Though he is keeping an open mind, his views are not alarming, like the opening statement of this article:
“Researchers have some bad news for future farmers and eaters: As carbon dioxide levels rise this century, some grains and legumes will become significantly less nutritious than they are today”
If a farmer has a bigger yield, which clearly would be the case with elevated CO2, why would this be bad news for them?
Because they won’t have enough storage for their record large crop?
Because the price they get for their crop will go down from the increase in supply?
Let’s look at a recent article about high yielding corn hybrids that have boosted the size of our nations corn crop that use more nitrogen fertilizer and use up more micronutrients in the soil. If these are not replaced or added to soil you end up with a deficiency in the soil.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2013/Q4/high-nitrogen-rates-increase-micronutrient-uptake,-storage-in-corn.html
1.The improved modern hybrids of corn plants are uptaking more of these micronutrients and nitrogen fertilizer rates control how much is stored in the plants at harvest…….unless there is a shortage in the soil because of the increased needs from higher yielding crops.
2. With regards to the study that was done with higher CO2 rates. If, all other things being equal, when you do the same thing with modern higher yielding corn plants, using the increased nitrogen to maximize yields(instead of CO2) , the micronutrient requirements in the soil are higher, then why wouldn’t micronutrients requirements in the soil also be higher with elevated CO2 levels? Did this study account for this?
3. Not only can/do scientists make changes to improve crop genetics to adjust for various situations, farmers manage soils and the environment to add or take away what is needed to maximize yields and nutritional content.
Latitude says:
Exactly.
The problem is, these studies are interpreted by dumbasses. Therefore, they assume that the net response will be the result that would occur if everyone was a dumbass. The notion that human beings will find a way to mitigate the small decrease in micronutrients while capitalizing on the huge increase in macronutrients and the net increase in yield/ac of all nutrients … well that is not something that could ever occur to these dumbasses. The big hurdle for them, apart from the inconsistency with their preconceived ‘global warming’ commitment, is that word – capitalizing. It offends their sensibilities, so they wish it away.
Another consideration is that those 2 Billion people who they claim are currently suffering iron and zinc deficiency, are also suffering substantial caloric deficiency. Their primary need is more food. If you feed them 25% more food that is 25% lower in micronutrients like iron and zinc, they will get the same amount of iron and zinc as before, and 25% more calories. This is how you fix malnutrition.
Another plan that would make the dumbasses’ heads explode – feed the increased crop yield to animals, then eat the animals. One of the primary functions of animal husbandry is the concentration of the sparse nutrients from low quality forage into high quality meat – replete with iron, zinc, and protein. Beef, lamb and goats grow quite well on maize and other C4 grasses, the existing varieties of which show no loss of nutrients but increased yield under CO2 enrichment…
Consider a world nutrient like wheat… (This purported problem is a non -issue)
Reference
Pal, M., Rao, L.S., Srivastava, A.C., Jain, V. and Sengupta, U.K. 2003/4. Impact of CO2 enrichment and variable nitrogen supplies on composition and partitioning of essential nutrients of wheat. Biologia Plantarum 47: 227-231.
Background
Loladze (2002) speculates that atmospheric CO2 enrichment will alter the plant tissue concentrations of a number of micronutrients, many of which are important to human health, worrying that if decreases predominate over increases, humanity could suffer severe adverse consequences.
What was done
In a study that is relevant to this hypothesis, the authors grew well-watered wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. HD-2285) plants from seed for 90 days in pots supplied with either high or low concentrations of soil nitrogen (150 or 75 kg N ha-1, respectively) in sunlit open-top chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of either 350 or 600 ppm, after which their leaves, stems and roots were analyzed for concentrations of the micronutrients Mn, Zn, Cu and Fe.
What was learned
The extra 250 ppm of atmospheric CO2 decreased the leaf, stem and root concentrations of Fe at both soil nitrogen levels: -1.8% (leaves, high N), -17.8% (stems, high N), -15.7% (roots, high N), -15.9% (leaves, low N), -13.2% (stems, low N), -10.2% (roots, low N). However, it did just the opposite for the other three micronutrients. For Mn the observed increases were +22.4% (leaves, high N), +0.0% (stems, high N), +37.6% (roots, high N), +20.9% (leaves, low N), +3.3% (stems, low N), +41.2% (roots, low N), for Zn they were +12.9% (leaves, high N), +4.5% (stems, high N), +6.0% (roots, high N), +12.5% (leaves, low N), +9.3% (stems, low N), +9.1% (roots, low N), while for Cu they were +4.3% (leaves, high N), +42.4% (stems, high N), +13.9% (roots, high N), +7.9% (leaves, low N), +38.2% (stems, low N), +14.1% (roots, low N). Averaged across the three plant parts and both soil N levels, the CO2-induced changes in micronutrient concentrations within the wheat plants were: -12.4% (Fe), +20.9% (Mn), +9.0% (Zn) and +20.1% (Cu).
What it means
For three of the four micronutrients investigated in this study, atmospheric CO2 enrichment led to concentration increases, reminiscent of the findings of Lieffering et al. (2004), who observed CO2-induced increases in the concentrations of six out of six micronutrients (Zn, Mn, Cu, B, Mo, plus Fe) in a study of rice grains. Hence, there is reason to hope that the fears of Loladze will not be realized, and that perhaps just the opposite may prove to be true in the case of most food plants.
References
Lieffering, M., Kim, H.-Y., Kobayashi, K. and Okada, M. 2004. The impact of elevated CO2 on the elemental concentrations of field-grown rice grains. Field Crops Research 88: 279-286.
Loladze, I. 2002. Rising atmospheric CO2 and human nutrition: towards globally imbalanced plant stoichiometry. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17: 457-461.
“In this study, all other growing conditions (sunlight, soil, water, temperature) were the same for plants grown at high-CO2 and those used as controls.”
Crops yield more quantity with higher levels of CO2.Stands to reason a larger plant will dilute the available soil nutrients.
Ever think of adding fertilizer while increasing CO2?
Marijuana growers are using CO2 to produce both higher yields with higher potency.
Everyone please follow the link below…
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 7, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Here is Craig Idso’s summary of the literature regarding CO2 and the nutrient content of crops:
http://www.co2science.org/subject/n/nutrition.php
-Chip
==========================
This has been well researched, and is not a problem
My critique of this study would be that you are introducing an external pressure on the plants instantly. Plants that are currently producing at 400 ppm CO2 are now exposed to 550 ppm and then [being] asked, what happens? This is not necessarily a fair simulation and nutrient contents could be quite different for multiple generations of plants grown over the course of CO2 rising from 400 ppm to 550 ppm.
Is there any hope for Sorghum bicolor?
Meanwhile, back at the secret volcano base of the Climate Rapid Response Team, Dr. Cookevil discusses the latest threat with his minions.
Dr. C: Oh NO! These lousy deniers are actually showing CO2 to be GOOD! They show how fast it makes plants grow. The starving people will be able to eat more. We’ve got to put a stop to this right now.
MinionNutti: I know, we can mobilize the Rapid Response Team to put out a general alarm. Some needy grad student can whip up a quick paper showing how the plants will produce empty calories.
MinionMarriott: Great! I’ll light the Climate Disaster Beacon