High CO2 levels cause plants to thicken their leaves, could worsen climate change effects
Plant scientists have observed that when levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rise, most plants do something unusual: They thicken their leaves.
And since human activity is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, thick-leafed plants appear to be in our future.
But the consequences of this physiological response go far beyond heftier leaves on many plants. Two University of Washington scientists have discovered that plants with thicker leaves may exacerbate the effects of climate change because they would be less efficient in sequestering atmospheric carbon, a fact that climate change models to date have not taken into account.
In a paper published Oct. 1 in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, the researchers report that, when they incorporated this information into global climate models under the high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels expected later this century, the global “carbon sink” contributed by plants was less productive — leaving about 5.8 extra petagrams, or 6.39 million tons, of carbon in the atmosphere per year. Those levels are similar to the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere each year due to human-generated fossil fuel emissions — 8 petagrams, or 8.8 million tons.
“Plants are flexible and respond to different environmental conditions,” said senior author Abigail Swann, a UW assistant professor of atmospheric sciences and biology. “But until now, no one had tried to quantify how this type of response to climate change will alter the impact that plants have on our planet.”
In addition to a weakening plant carbon sink, the simulations run by Swann and Marlies Kovenock, a UW doctoral student in biology, indicated that global temperatures could rise an extra 0.3 to 1.4 degrees Celsius beyond what has already been projected to occur by scientists studying climate change.
“If this single trait — leaf thickness — in high carbon dioxide levels has such a significant impact on the course of future climate change, we believe that global climate models should take other aspects of plant physiology and plant behavior into account when trying to forecast what the climate will look like later this century,” said Kovenock, who is lead author on the paper.
Scientists don’t know why plants thicken their leaves when carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere. But the response has been documented across many different types of plant species, such as woody trees; staple crops like wheat, rice and potatoes; and other plants that undergo C3 carbon fixation, the form of photosynthesis that accounts for about 95 percent of photosynthetic activity on Earth.
Leaves can thicken by as much as a third, which changes the ratio of surface area to mass in the leaf and alters plant activities like photosynthesis, gas exchange, evaporative cooling and sugar storage. Plants are crucial modulators of their environment — without them, Earth’s atmosphere wouldn’t contain the oxygen that we breathe — and Kovenock and Swann believed that this critical and predictable leaf-thickening response was an ideal starting point to try to understand how widespread changes to plant physiology will affect Earth’s climate.
“Plant biologists have gathered large amounts of data about the leaf-thickening response to high carbon dioxide levels, including atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that we will see later this century,” said Kovenock. “We decided to incorporate the known physiological effects of leaf thickening into climate models to find out what effect, if any, this would have on a global scale.”
A 2009 paper by researchers in Europe and Australia collected and catalogued data from years of experiments on how plant leaves change in response to different environmental conditions. Kovenock and Swann incorporated the collated data on carbon dioxide responses into Earth-system models that are widely used in modeling the effect of diverse factors on global climate patterns.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today hovers around 410 parts per million. Within a century, it may rise as high as 900 ppm. The carbon dioxide level that Kovenock and Swann simulated with thickened leaves was just 710 ppm. They also discovered the effects were worse in specific global regions. Parts of Eurasia and the Amazon basin, for example, showed a higher minimum increase in temperature. In these regions, thicker leaves may hamper evaporative cooling by plants or cloud formation, said Kovenock.
Swann and Kovenock hope that this study shows that it is necessary to consider plant responses to climate change in projections of future climate. There are many other changes in plant physiology and behavior under climate change that researchers could model next.
“We now know that even seemingly small alterations in plants such as this can have a global impact on climate, but we need more data on plant responses to simulate how plants will change with high accuracy,” said Swann. “People are not the only organisms that can influence climate.”
###
From the UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the UW.
Somehow, I just can’t let this disastrous news worry me, and did they consider that leaves that are 33% thicker store more carbon in the leaf?
And, of course, there will be more plants at high CO2 levels and will be larger.
It also take CO2 to build the biomass of the thicker leaves. This would seem to contradict the primary hypothesis.
When the leaves fall in the autumn and you have to rake them up, they will be heavier. That’s another worry that wasn’t pointed out. Unless of course you count the cardio benefits of lifting those leaves. Where does it all end?
Get used to backhoe loaders in your garden during fall.
Don’t forget loss of sleep, when those gigantic leaves crash to the ground at night. And you have to wear a hard hat outside, too.
Leave falling off a tree? Monty Python beat you all to it…
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=monty+python+leaves+falling+off+tree&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBAU811AU811&oq=monty+python+leave&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.6925j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
That is actually true for palm forests. The noise of a falling leaf can wake you up. And it can flatten your tent as well. A palm leaf can weigh 50 pounds.
Oh yeah. And then
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&q=sci+fi+murderish+plants+the+triffids&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXtIuIkOjdAhVGfMAKHXV0A7QQBQggKAA&biw=360&bih=560
On the plus side, employment opportunities for chiropractors and physical therapists, working on back injuries, will skyrocket. So we have that going for us…
…which is nice.
I’m going to have to buy new rakes to handle the heavier leaves? Please, make it stop!
Dose this mean my swamp will become farm land ?
Guess my dreams of a gator farm are re leaved
Think of all the injuries caused by falling leaves when CO2 was at 4000 ppmv.
Like falling brickbats.
dicem up with the mower and leavem on the ground
“plants with thicker leaves … because they would be less efficient in sequestering atmospheric carbon”
well yeah duh, they don’t have to work has hard…the plant would tell them it’s more efficient
..and crops that we eat the leaves, means we get more food
Eating lettuce may seem less pointless…
We’ll be forced to eat healthier! More salads for everyone!
“..and crops that we eat the leaves, means we get more food
Yep, but that falls into the “good news from climate change”, which means it will never get reported by the MSM.
Although, it means I’ll have to throw out even more kale given to me by well-meaning neighbours…
The picture of a plant above is a succulent and in no way representative of the average leaf. Wow.
“The stupid, it burns.”
Not to mention it’s a C4 plant not a C3 which the article is about.
Phil,
Actually, it’s CAM, not C4. Crassulacean acid metabolism is actually named after the genus, Crassula. Jade plant.
If that’s the only thing you have to complain about, why bother?
how will the luvvies ever chew the arugula !!!!
I predict that with enough global warming the plants will become man-eaters. The Little Shop of Horrors will become a Nat Geo documentary.
I wasn’t around at the time, but I have been told that we owe the O2 in our atmosphere mostly to cynaobacteria many, many eons ago, and that most of the photosynthesis on the planet currently occurs in the oceans and mostly from phytoplantkon and that they account for possibly up to 85% of the O2 produced today. They don’t have leaves and so cannot get thicker. Clearly, ‘plant scientists’ and their breathless reporters can’t get any thicker either: them are maximum dense.
So greenhouses are guilty of this on a massive scale and selling it to consumers.
And not providing enough data to the University of Washington, whose researchers are thus forced to rely on models.
Oh yes. It is CO2 that makes kale taste like crap. Without CO2 kale would be much thinner and thus less fattening.
I see a real future for carbon reduced food in the diet and health food industry.
Forget coke zero. Carbon zero is the next greatest thing.
In my part of the world Coke Zero has recently been replaced by Coke, Sugar free. Is this the next next greatest thing?
hmm? I think thats called cordial?
lol
The dinosaurs were brighter than these dimbo’s. They accepted things were good, food was abundant and climate change was something that just happened. Didn’t it take a meteor to wipe them out? If not, I don’t think it was climate change.
Thicker salads? I am all for it!
But think of the poor cows that will grow skinnier as they must now chew thicker leaves and wear their teeth out faster! All that chewing and getting less nutrition with each mouthful. OMG the poor bovines will starve to death with full bellies!
But that’s a good thing … right???
‘Cause aren’t cows one of the real problems we face today?
At least when we move to our vego-diet because the cows are killing the planet, our salad will be as thick as these scientists.
You wouldn’t if you were slapped by one of the new AGW enhanced lettuce leafs.
Every niche of nature is a publication opportunity for promotion in the CO2 Dark Ages.
Doesn’t that mean that falling CO2 levels thin plant leaves? Maybe this means that cabbage prices are going to fall as the globe warms?
Note to self: Short cabbage futures.
LOL
Sounds like they are trying to get their snouts in the money trough. As you say greater thickness means greater mass which in my perspective means not only greater carbon capture in any one leaf but more of them and hence more nutritional value. These alarmists simply will not admit that carbon dioxide can have any beneficial effects. If it wasn’t so serious this would be laughable.
Jack the skeptic cuts down the beanstalk of the giant alarmistas, they fall to their death and Jack lives happily ever after, be the leaves as thick as the latest IPCC assessment report.
Faster, lusher and greater growth under high CO₂ levels and somehow these dimwits reach this conclusion?
It’s not about science.
It’s not about measurements.
It’s all about belief and the fears they can instill into gullible people.
Demand the Federal funding returned!
The main thing that appears to be getting thicker is the scientists involved.
“when they incorporated this information into global climate models under the high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels”
Garbage In Garbage Out.
Mathematical onanism. If they don’t stop they will go blind.
Will thicker leaves be a hazard in the fall?
No but the thicker leaves will be only on certain places on the Eath and so it may fall over … the legendary tipping point strikes.
Gonna need a bigger rake!
Observations show increasing CO2 sinks with rising CO2 levels.d
Does this mean that greenhouse tomato vines have thicker leaves that the garden variety?
Who come up with this garbage?
Ve2
A phenomenon hitherto unheard of amongst commercial tomato growers who pump their greenhouses full of CO2.
Yet another barmy study dreamed up by grant chasing ‘scientists’ with absolutely no foundation in the real world.
Thick leaves or thick researchers?
With thin brains.
The “we need more money” quote – “We now know that even seemingly small alterations in plants such as this can have a global impact on climate, but we need more data on plant responses to simulate how plants will change with high accuracy,” said Swann.
I wonder what these morons think leaves are made from?
Will plugging this new parameter into climate models make them more accurate?
I suppose I’ll just make do with half a sprout on the Christmas dinner this year then.
“The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today hovers around 410 parts per million. Within a century, it may rise as high as 900 ppm. The carbon dioxide level that Kovenock and Swann simulated with thickened leaves was just 710 ppm. “
You have to be spectacularly incompetent at math to think 900ppm by 2118 is possible.
That would be of course require an average +5 ppm/year for *all* 100 of those coming years. Annual CO2 growth rates vary greatly due to the influence of the ENSO cycle and major volcanic cooling like 1991 Pinatubo eruption did to 1992 rise of just 0.46 ppm/yr. For the decade 2000-2010, the decadal average annual rate was +1.99ppm/yr. For the current decade 2010-2020, the decade average annual rise look like it’ll come in at/around +2.25(+/- 0.05) ppm/yr.
Making the big (unrealistic) assumption that 0.026ppm/yr^2 is the annual growth’s growth rate (i.e. acceleration), it is simple to see that by 2118, the annual growth rate in CO2 will be V(100years) = V(today) + (acceleration x time) = (2.25 + 0.026×100) ppm/yr = +4.85 ppm/yr growth rate in 2118, short of entire 5 ppm/yr century average needed to get to 900 ppm.
These numbers tell us that under the continued acceleration of CO2 growth rate scenario seen for the past 20 years (mostly due to China and India acceleration of CO2 output) by 2118, pCO2 will be 765 ppm. That should be the real upper limit on assuming an accelerating CO2 scenario, not the fake 900 ppm.
The reality is global coal and petroleum use will likely be falling by 2068 (50 years from now) as fracking for gas continues upwards (as more shale plays comeonline around the world) and more countries are forced to ramp-up nuclear power if they want to maintain reliable grid power. This will occur for economic and resource scarcity reasons having nothing to do with ridiculous artificial treaties like Paris or Kyoto.
The last 20 years have seen China and India output of CO2 massively accelerate, which is the bulk of what is driving global CO2 output acceleration (the US is going down due to increasing natural gas use). That could continue (the acceleration above, i.e. 0.026 ppm/yr^2) until probably 2040 to 2050, when availability of coal starts to get restricted based on availability. Then the acceleration will begin falling for the next 20 years, so that by 2075 pCO2 will peak at ~580 ppm before starting a slow descent.
As things stand now, given the reality of easy coal depletion and the increasingly difficult oil output growth by 2065 (not the fake assumption of continued acceleration for all 100 years) is that the 2x pre-industrial CO2 of 570 ppm will likely arrive around 2072. By 2100 it will be 626 ppm (or less). And by 2118, the pCO2 will be 662 ppm (or less). These numbers are far short of the 720 ppm number that Kovenock and Swann used here to get their fat leaves.
Those guys can’t allow themselves to do the simple maths to see that CO2 growth numbers under RCP8.5 or any pCO2 numbers above 765 ppm by 2118 are fiction, just like a Marvel movie CGI superhero flying through the air under the power of thought. Just because you can imagine it and put it in computer model, doesn’t make it real. But then fat grants don’t come to researchers who report no reason for concern in their results.
Even the prediction of 575 is optimistic. Where will they find fuel to get to 700+?
We have about 100 years to solve the energy problem. After that, it will be difficult toasted use coal and oil for most energy requirements. Gas is probably forever as it is manufactured by natural processes in the lower lithosphere.
We gave down quite well technically in the past 100 years. We can continue for the next 100,000.
Somewhere around 560 to 600 ppm will be the turning point. Mostly from estimates of people who actually understand the global biogeochemical carbon cycle, and atmospheric evolution.
CO2 never “accumulates” in the atmosphere, the amount is determined by naturally occurring and overhwhelming amounts of global source and sink fluxes. Both biological and abiotic sources and sinks are many times larger than the amount due to fossil fuel burning.
“CO2 never “accumulates” in the atmosphere, the amount is determined by naturally occurring and overhwhelming amounts of global source and sink fluxes. Both biological and abiotic sources and sinks are many times larger than the amount due to fossil fuel burning.”
Of course it “accumulates”, and of course natural sources out-way human ones.
But try looking at this …
Does that look like it “never accumulates”??
The carbon cycle should be in balance, in terms of sinks sources, and is to natural ones However mother nature did not reckon on mankind adding ~ 40 Gt/year to the atmosphere.
Over simplistic. Your chart is just a level cherry picked to support your propaganda.
Show the last million years, with the Y-axis from 0 to 4000 ppm.
That link shows nothing regarding the global biogeochemical carbon cycle.
All atmospheric contents are fluxes to and from surface pools that are orders of magnitude more massive. Just as water never accumulates in a river, CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere, it just flows from sources to sinks. The river level will rise and fall as the relative influxes rise and fall. The sinks are essentially infinite, just as the Nile flows into the Mediterranean sea, no matter how much you add to the sources, the river will always outflow into an infinite sink.
Thermal energy never accumulates in the atmosphere, it just flows from surface to space.
Water never accumulates in any river. It just flows.
CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere, it just flows.
If you add 4 percent to the flow of a river, the river will never accumulate that new flow, the amount will remain 4 percent higher until it reaches the ocean.
So the fossil fuel concentration of CO2 is also 4 percent of the natural flow rate.
4 percent of 400 ppm is 16 ppm. It can never get higher because it is flowing along with the rest of the CO2 into the infinite sink. If anthro-CO2 ever reaches 5 percent of the natural flow rate, the concentration will become 5 percent of whatever the measured concentration is at that time. If that amount is 500 ppm, then the anthropogenic portion will become 5 percent of that 500 ppm or 25 ppm.
None of the CO2 that existed in the Earth’s atmosphere 100 years ago remains there today. It has all passed into the abyss, oceanic, geological and biological sinks, replaced by a similar amount of deep CO2 from the overwhelming deep sources that operate on very long time scales.
Most of the fossil fuel CO2 entering the Earth’s atmosphere in 2018 will be gone within 50 years, at rate of about 5 percent per year. It’s just an observed facts.
“Show the last million years, with the Y-axis from 0 to 4000 ppm.”
OK ….
Nothing above 300ppm.
“CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere, it just flows.”
Correct – but you should think of “flux”.
As in more is flowing in than is flowing out.
The carbon cycle has a fixed flow rate, which it has settled at over millenia.
Antho GHG emissions have exceeded that.
Hence the build up which is there in the observations.
“That link shows nothing regarding the global biogeochemical carbon cycle.”
Of course it does – it shows it’s behaviour in human time-scales.
“Most of the fossil fuel CO2 entering the Earth’s atmosphere in 2018 will be gone within 50 years, at rate of about 5 percent per year. It’s just an observed facts.”
About 50% of it will be gone in 50 years yes (but ONLY if emissions became zero today)
You forget that the capacity of CO2 sinks will decrease as they take up the anthro excess …
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
“The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.
Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.
Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.
As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.”
“CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere, it just flows.”
Correct – but you should think of “flux”.
As in more is flowing in than is flowing out.
The carbon cycle has a fixed flow rate, which it has settled at over millenia.
Antho GHG emmissions have exceeded that.
Hence the build up which is there in the observations.
Or don’t you belive the observations.
“That link shows nothing regarding the global biogeochemical carbon cycle.”
Of course it does – it shows it’s behaviour in human time-scales.
Actually much longer. Unless you think mankind can survive longer that 10000 years on this planet.
“Most of the fossil fuel CO2 entering the Earth’s atmosphere in 2018 will be gone within 50 years, at rate of about 5 percent per year. It’s just an observed facts.”
But no it’s not.
ABout50% of it will be gone in 50 years (but ONLY if emmissions beacme zero today)
You forget that the capacity of CO2 sinks will decrease as they take uou the anthro excess …
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
“The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.
Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.
Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.
As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.”
Sorry, was 200k years short with that graph ….
Using carbon isotope analysis, the increase from 287 ppm to 410 ppm over the past 2.5 centuries can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.
http://www.jamespowell.org/Stuff/Ourfault/Ourfault.html
How about thawing permafrost, methane emissions from livestock, outgassing from oceans? And less carbon sequestration due to thicker leaves.
How do you know what they took into account?
“Gas is probably forever as it is manufactured by natural processes in the lower lithosphere.” As fast as we use it? From what material? Gas is a fossil fuel, too.
“We have about 100 years to solve the energy problem.”
So, technology will make everything fine. Meanwhile, renewable energy isn’t worth pursuing because we already have so much cheap energy – so who cares if our progeny run out? They’ll think of something…hydrogen, or uranium recycling – just as long as it’s not solar or wind generation, it’s OK. Huh. Interesting perspective.
and still CO2 is 10% of what it once was. BFD
Kristi demonstrates the way leftists “think”.
The problem is that energy will be expensive for our kids.
The solution, make energy expensive now.
No, the solution is to get rich now, so that our kids will have the resources they need to solve the problems that they face.
That reminds me of James Lovelock’s article that did the rounds with reprints and his 400 foot sea level rise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5153722.stm
None of the CAGW believers had enough intelligence to ask “what is the maxium possible sea level rise”.
Apparently the number comes from an IPCC projection which doesn’t include an upper limit and so you get a ludicrous number that exceeds all the water on the entire planet.
One the face of it, thicker leaves would make for healthier plants and more robust be able to survive drought much better as we already know from increasing CO2 making crops less thirsty. Plus more stores of chlorophyll making plant stores of sugars & starches. The opposite is true that when CO2 levels drop to dangerously low levels such as at the peak of the ice age, at 180 ppmv, the leaves get much thinner with much less chlorophyll as they are that much closer to death and extinction. As everyone knows, plants are healthier with more CO2, and in a warmer climate. That is why greenhouses are at optimum levels for growth, which is a lot of the vegetables we eat already. This study is full of holes, notwithstanding they preface everything with ‘may’ or ‘might’ causing all kinds of side effects adding to the climate change blues. Same old same old alarmism.
Hi again, Earthling2 (is there an Earthling1?)
” Leaf trait acclimation drives declines in productivity and evapotranspiration by reducing leaf area growth in response to elevated carbon dioxide, as a one‐third increase in leaf mass per area raises the cost of building leaf area and productivity fails to fully compensate.”
PRODUCTIVITY FAILS TO COMPENSATE.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GB005883
Why is it that people jump to conclusions based on press releases?
“As everyone knows, plants are healthier with more CO2, and in a warmer climate.”
It depends on the plant, but many vegetables decrease their growth rates over a certain temperature. Greenhouses are typically kept at 50-70F, sometimes up to 80F, beyond which yield tends to decline (especially at night, when they like cooler temps). High temps also lead to more soil water evaporation. Plus there are all kinds of soil microbial interactions, which can determine nutrient cycling.
Plant growth in nature is much more complex than CO2 levels.
“May” and “might” are typical science-talk. Scientists don’t like to be definite.
You don’t know that it’s the same old alarmism, especially without reading the paper. You’ve been taught to distrust scientists. It’s the psychology of skepticism at work.
When I was a kid I had lots of models. They were fun to play with cuz they could be anything I wanted them to be.
Did these guys even go into a vegetable greenhouse where CO2 levels are above 1000ppm to see the effects?
Probably too easy.
++++++
Steve B,
No, probably not. They just went around to all the places outdoors where the CO2 is 710 ppm.
Kristi ==> That would be nowhere….not without CO2 manipulation .
There are no localities with natural CO2 levels of 710 ppm.
Kip,
I was joking.
That would be too easy and require them to actually go outside and observe the real world.
This article makes me ashamed to have attended the U of W.
Me too, though there are some good people who, while being semi-alarmist in the CliSci way, still seem to have their heads screwed on the right way.
Also, I used to walk past the university greenhouses on the Burke-Gilman trail near Physics/Chem/Atmospheric sciences and noticed that there never actually seemed to be any activity in them. Perhaps they were too busy tinkering with their computer models to spare any time for experimental science.
Would thicker leaves be more efficient at capturing sunlight?