Yes, somehow, more plants growing due to increased CO2 will cause more carbon dioxide in a vicious cycle. Notice three things about this study: 1. The word “could” 2. “modeling work”. 3. Lack of any paleo reference to such an event in Earth’s past during higher periods of CO2.
From Princeton: Dirty pool: Soil’s large carbon stores could be freed by increased CO2, plant growth
An increase in human-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could initiate a chain reaction between plants and microorganisms that would unsettle one of the largest carbon reservoirs on the planet — soil.
Researchers based at Princeton University report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the carbon in soil — which contains twice the amount of carbon in all plants and Earth’s atmosphere combined — could become increasingly volatile as people add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, largely because of increased plant growth. The researchers developed the first computer model to show at a global scale the complex interaction between carbon, plants and soil, which includes numerous bacteria, fungi, minerals and carbon compounds that respond in complex ways to temperature, moisture and the carbon that plants contribute to soil.
Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant, carbon dioxide also supports plant growth. As trees and other vegetation flourish in a carbon dioxide-rich future, their roots could stimulate microbial activity in soil that in turn accelerates the decomposition of soil carbon and its release into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the researchers found.
This effect counters current key projections regarding Earth’s future carbon cycle, particularly that greater plant growth could offset carbon dioxide emissions as flora take up more of the gas, said first author Benjamin Sulman, who conducted the modeling work as a postdoctoral researcher at the Princeton Environmental Institute.
“You should not count on getting more carbon storage in the soil just because tree growth is increasing,” said Sulman, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at Indiana University.
On the other hand, microbial activity initiated by root growth could lock carbon onto mineral particles and protect it from decomposition, which would increase long-term storage of carbon in soils, the researchers report.
Whether carbon emissions from soil rise or fall, the researchers’ model depicts an intricate soil-carbon system that contrasts starkly with existing models that portray soil as a simple carbon repository, Sulman said. An oversimplified perception of the soil carbon cycle has left scientists with a glaring uncertainty as to whether soil would help mitigate future carbon dioxide levels — or make them worse, Sulman said.
“The goal was to take that very simple model and add some of the most important missing processes,” Sulman said. “The main interactions between roots and soil are important and shouldn’t be ignored. Root growth and activity are such important drivers of what goes on in the soil, and knowing what the roots are doing could be an important part of understanding what the soil will be doing.”
The researchers’ soil-carbon cycle model has been integrated into the global land model used for climate simulations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) located on Princeton’s Forrestal Campus.
###
Benjamin N. Sulman, Richard P. Phillips, A. Christopher Oishi, Elena Shevliakova, and Stephen W. Pacala. 2014. Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nature Climate Change. Article published in December 2014 print edition. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2436
The work was supported by grants from NOAA (grant no. NA08OAR4320752); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (grant no. 2011-67003-30373); and Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative sponsored by BP.
“..researchers found.” “knowing what the roots are doing could be an important part of understanding what the soil will be doing.”
Reasearchers were not researching and so they found nothing. Knowing what the roots are doing – ask a botanist, don’t look to a mathematical model to learn anything! I’m very concerned that we are losing real knowledge and the goofy stuff gets hard wired in. Children’s and adults’ text books are full of bull now. How and who is going to straighten all this up?
I think they forgot, “and necessary for life as we know to exist.”
This is strange, it suggests observations are irrelevant, since the models have it all figured out. Cool, lets just keep piling unverified models on top of unverified models until there is not doubt to their veracity. It’s the new scientific method.
Oops how could I miss this.
This is even a better reason to use the soil model, it can forecast that the soil could hold more CO2 or it could hold less. Put simply, the forecast can vary depending on who provides the grant money.
Attention Global leaders and UNFCCC: To conserve about 40% of fuel & thereby reduce carbon emissions, to control climate change and global warming, to prevent road crash deaths and save millions of people from pollution related diseases and to reduce 80% of traffic jams, to uplift the downtrodden and reduce economic inequalities etc. for the first time in the world, I possess a WIPO approved miracle invention. So, is there anybody in the world who can help me to dedicate this PANACEA to humankind? Please Mail to: *vthoorun.rcrv@gmail.com *
So the CAGW doctrine is:
People going “green” = Good
The planet going green = Bad
(Sigh) The fall of Man.
We’ve brought this on ourselves by stating the fact that CO2 is plant food, and that plants sequester carbon. They are attacking that information because anthropogenic CO2 must never be seen in a positive light. If it is a plant food, then plants are evil. If we use evil plants to sequester CO2, the ground is evil. As they tell us, “Their roots could stimulate microbial activity in soil that in turn accelerates the decomposition of soil carbon and its release into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.” Duh, like we didn’t know that. But by all means, Mr. Scientist, spend our taxpayer money to prove the carbon cycle again. And please use your computer model to prove the devastation that vegetation and microbes cause, because nature and history tell us nothing.
Heaven forbid we should leave our grandchildren a legacy of lush forests.
I keep wondering..
Should such professional idiocy have its own category?
Such as Gang Green?
lool? The plants absorbing more co2 causes more co2. What happens when plants absorb less co2? More co2 of course! Damned if you do damned if you don’t. How can people with half a brain buy into this?
Just like the oceans and atmosphere, soil is not a closed system. They are not taking into account denudation of the underlying bed rock which requires the reaction of carbonic acid, consuming CO2 in the process to release various metals and salts, aka nutrients.
The way this works . . the birth of such studies.
Warmists sense certain realities, such as:
1.) Plants grow better with higher CO2 levels, specifically larger more productive crops with stronger deeper root structure.
2.) These healthier/hardier plants [crops] will perform/survive droughts better.
Warmist’s concerns:
Damn.
Warmist’s solution:
Fabricate a study which will show something bizarre; perhaps like:
— As trees and other vegetation flourish in a carbon dioxide-rich future, their roots could stimulate microbial activity in soil that in turn accelerates the decomposition of soil carbon and its release into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Problem is – that is good. Even stronger healthier plants more capable of surviving intense drought.
Having participated in many years of soil organic matter research related to cropping systems and balanced fertility management my only comment is that this is yet another doomsday scenario. There are many areas where organic matter levels are increasiing, erosion eliminated, water use efficiency dramatically improved, nutrient use dramatically improved, crop production increasing every year with ongoing environmental enhancement. Of course there continues to be areas of concern but the sky is not falling. Balance please.