From Dartmouth College and the “dead rainbows and starving unicorns” department, complete with artist’s conception:
Climate-warmed leaves change lake ecosystems, Dartmouth-led study finds
HANOVER, N.H. – Rising soil temperatures significantly affect autumn leaves and consequently the food web, appearance and biochemical makeup of the lakes and ponds those leaves fall into, a Dartmouth College-led study finds.
The study is one of the first to rigorously explore climate warming’s impact on “ecological subsidies,” or the exchange of nutrients and organisms between ecosystems. “Our findings could have profound consequences for conceptualizing how climate warming impacts linkages between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems,” says the study’s lead author Samuel Fey, a visiting scholar at Dartmouth and a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University.
The findings appear today online in the journal Oikos. A PDF is available on request.
The researchers collected maple leaves during autumn from experimental forest plots where the soil had been warmed or left untouched. They added the leaves to experimental freshwater enclosures containing plankton food webs consisting of zooplankton, algae and bacteria, thus creating “no leaf,” “ambient leaf” and “heated leaf” conditions. They then monitored the physical, chemical and biological responses in these artificial ponds until the enclosures froze six weeks later.
The results showed that soil warming caused a two-fold decrease in the leaves’ phosphorus concentrations, and that the addition of these “warmed” leaves to the ponds decreased the water’s phosphorus, dissolved organic carbon and density of bacteria, but improved the water’s clarity and caused a three-fold increase in the density of cladoceran zooplankton, commonly called water fleas. Zooplankton provide a crucial source of food to many larger aquatic organisms such as fish.
“Virtually nothing is known about how climate change may alter ecological subsidies,” Fey says. “Our results suggest that changes in soil temperature can have unexpected consequences for lake ecology and that predicting the consequences of climate change will require research across ecosystem boundaries.”
###
I own a considerable forest in upstate NY.
The leaf litter on the ground is very deep. Every fall, new leaves fall on the old litter which over time turns black and becomes rich compost for the trees.
LITTLE SUN FALLS IN THE FOREST. The summer canopy makes it quite cool and dark and if you are in the fields during the day haying the grass, for example, it is hot. Drive the tractor up the road into the deep forest and it is dark and cool.
Simple stuff any farmer knows!
My forest cools the climate. My fields heat it up. Don’t need a PhD to figure this out.
“Virtually nothing is known about how climate change may alter ecological subsidies,” Fey says.
Well, actually, old fruit, a great deal is known about these “subsides”. They’re called grant money. You tell the big boys ‘n gals with the agenda & the big fat taxpayers funded cheque book, exactly what he/she wants to hear, & you’ll get squillions of £/$/ϵ to spend to your heart’s content! Simple! Sarc off!
Willie Soon did ok without ’em.
Well, it certainly sounds like ground breaking research to me…….
In other words one more stupid fantasy from the imaginations of kookie alarmists. Is anyone anywhere doing real research to solve real problems?
A typical academic free-lunch foray into the obvious. If you add some ag-lime to the mix it will even give you faster, better results and ideal water alkalinity for Bass, Bluegill,and Catfish. my lake had fibrous algae and water primrose problems until I started using bacteria to reduce the free phosphorus and nitrates that run off my fields. Any warming would be welcome these last few years as it would give more time for bacterial blooms.
This may be the most stupid thing I’ve ever read. Plus I have to ask how much the soil in central Massachusetts has warmed above baseline over the last 3 months…
The refs are paywalled. So, what type of cable at what voltage/current? AC or DC? If DC any ripple component? Shielded cable? Magnetic field intensity/frequency and/or inductive currents in soil/vegetation?
In other words, are these effects due only to the added heat with other known variables known to have biological and chemical effects carefully considered and isolated?
Not being able to find full facts, did they dig up both sets of plots the same and did they balance the moisture due to evaporation in both as these will have a big effect on nutrient take up. It would have the effect of a drought on the trees. If you take the temp and move south till it is 5 deg warmer would the trees even grow there?
Well at least they didn’t use computer models.
‘“Virtually nothing is known about how climate change may alter ecological subsidies,” Fey says.’
The use of the word ‘subsidies’ in the above quote left me somewhat baffled. I had never heard it used in a scientific or ecological sense. So, I decided to refresh my understanding of its meaning in case my interpretation had been mistaken. So, I went online and looked up the definition of ‘subsidies.’ Every single source defined the word, with only slight variations, in the following manner (which I copied and pasted here):
‘a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business …’
Yep, I guess the word still means what it always has! Money grubbing researchers – I salute you!
Tom J, that’s why it’s in “quotes”.
Here’s a definition for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-boundary_subsidy
It is very cold up there in Hanover N.H. Maybe they need to move south and warm up their minds a bit.
I think a much bigger issue will be if there are lakes that stop turning over, leading to deoxygenation of the lower layers and loss of aquatic life (even if fish can move up to the surface, the whole food chain will be disrupted).
only 2 “ifs
Barry, read this:
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/media/lake-turnover/?ar_a=1
and tell us what soil heating of leaves has to do with what you glean from your studies.
The most accurate statement of this article was “Virtually nothing is known about how climate change may alter ecological subsidies,”
That’s because so little is actually known about climate change. Far too little to justify the panic that has been created and the grab for world power that it’s subversion has enabled.
No matter can be too stupid to make public money out of it.
Does anyone have a link to the pdf…? I want to know if it is as bad as the summary suggests.
High school science project? Peer reviewed by the HS science class?
Just what I was thinking. Typical high school might have to borrow some land and equipment, but conceptually it should be well within the range of high school students. That’s not to say it’s bad science.
Also, it need not be connected to global warming. Establishing the curve for trees’ response to changes in soil temperatures could be useful. Might go into a reference book.
Soil warmth? Or warmth from the effects of composting? Ah HAAAA! Didn’t see that one coming, did they?
Just a drop in the bucket compared to the AGW extinction of surfing!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/surfs-down-climate-change-may-flatten-famed-surfing-waves-20150225-13p10v.html
If you really want to have some fun, try heating the soil around a 3×3 Fire Ant nest!
There is no quantification of anything in their findings. How much temperature rise in the soil? How much lower carbon and [phosphorus]? How much more zooplankton? Is this nano science? Are these changes out in the 9th significant figure? That’s a change. But how do these changes affect anything that is sensible or significant to our environment? Those numbers are hopefully in the body of the report but the fact that the summary doesn’t have any of it tells me it is not significant. This findings summary seems to be all about the last sentence. “Our results suggest that changes in temperature can alter ecological subsidies in unanticipated ways, and suggest that accurately predicting the potential consequences of climate change will require conducting research across ecosystem boundaries”. Meaning our study has found that you need to pay us for more studies. This is marketing, not science.
Make sure you count all the hairs on the leaves while your getting funding. Wouldn’t want to miss anything important.
The time is nigh to develop a list of things that climate change does not effect.
Methinks it will be a very short list!
Surely they looked back at what happened to lake ecology during the warming period between say 1910 and 1940?
Don’t bet on it…
Hmm. Seems to me as if they find these alleged changes to be a positive thing, yet they are careful not to say so.
“Our results suggest that changes in soil temperature can have unexpected consequences for lake ecology and that predicting the consequences of climate change will require research across ecosystem boundaries”. “This will require many more years of funded research eventually leading me to a chair and possibly head of the department, or maybe even University President.”
There. Fixed it for ya.
What are unexpected consequences if virtually nothing is known? I actually liked the shrinking goats better.
From the ‘need glasses’ department–when I read the post on the main page, HANGOVER caught my attention. That explains it.
Yes well, it is a well-known truth to all sedentry minds that:
The lakes should be exactly the same each year.
The rains should be equal and even from year to year. No catastrophically wet years or impossibly dry years. Just like it’s been since Jesus walked on the earth. Perfect, average and typical from year to year.
The number of leaves that fall off each tree should be the same number each year.
The wind will blow this year just like it did last year, and exactly the same number of leaves will enter the watery graves, to be eaten by the same number of bugs and produce the same amount of methane.
No variation will be tolerated. So let it be written, so let it be done.
In CAMELOT