Since the beginning of the industrial era, photosynthesis has increased in nearly constant proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2
James Cook University
As the planet warms, plants are working to slow the effect of human-caused climate change – and research published today in Trends in Plant Science has assessed how plants are responding to increasing carbon dioxide (CO2).
“We know that terrestrial plants are currently absorbing more CO2 than is released into the atmosphere through the combination of fire, decomposition, plant respiration, and human-related emissions,” lead researcher Lucas Cernusak said.
“This is commonly known as the land carbon sink, and we know it’s currently slowing the rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing. What we don’t know is how strong that response is, and how long we can count on it.”
Associate Professor Cernusak, a terrestrial ecologist at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia, worked with colleagues from CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere in Canberra and the Université de Lorraine in France to measure the strength of the terrestrial biosphere’s response to increasing CO2.
They focussed on photosynthesis – the process in which plants capture energy from the sun and use it to synthesize carbohydrates from CO2 and water – and examined terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP), a measure of global photosynthesis.
Their modelling and analysis revealed that, since the beginning of the industrial era, photosynthesis has increased in nearly constant proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
“We expected the two would corelate, since CO2 stimulates photosynthesis, but given the complexity of plant and environmental interactions we were impressed by how closely they have kept pace,” Associate Professor Cernusak said.
“We can say that plants are working hard – the response is at the highest end of the expected range.”
The researchers used a combination of existing analyses and new modelling, alongside laboratory studies, to examine how increased CO2 affects photosynthesis, from individual leaves up to a global scale.
“This is an important step forward in the long and complex task of gauging how terrestrial vegetation will respond to climate change in the longer term,” Associate Professor Cernusak said.
While increased CO2 has allowed an increase in photosynthesis and global leaf area, the researchers warn that further climate change – with increasing frequency of events such as heat waves, droughts and storms – has the potential to significantly stress terrestrial vegetation and decrease production.
“It’s also important to remember that global change will manifest differently in different regions,” Professor Cernusak said.
“Our observations and modeling analyses suggest that in high latitude ecosystems it’s global warming that is driving the increase in leaf area and growing-season length.
“That’s quite different from the tropics, where our study indicates that CO2 fertilization is driving the growth in photosynthesis, while climbing temperatures can create significant stress for some plant species.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is the link to the article and abstract. Full text is behind a paywall.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/search/advanced?pub=Trends+in+Plant+Science&cid=271203&qs=Cernusak%2C+lucas
Considering that commercial glass houses run between 800 and 1100 PPM CO2 for optimum growth I would say we have a long way to go yet .
It looks like there is still some genuine useful scientific work being done at James Cook University despite the Peter Ridd affair.
Well, there are three parameters which affect total photosynthesis on land (oceanic capacity is different) and should thus be evaluated when wishing to estimate capacity for photosynthesis to continue to increase.
1. Total land area hosting photosynthetic organisms.
There is huge capacity to restore deadlands, desert margins, deforested areas etc.
2. Photosynthetic capacity per unit area.
Obviously, at any latitude or longitude, there is a maximum photosynthetic capacity where soil is optimal, ecosystem is optimal and regenerative capacity is optimum. Whether many areas are remotely close to that is up for debate.
3. Resilience to destructive shock.
Floods, fires, hurricanes, pests etc can all transiently reduce photosynthetic capacity in a given area.
How an area recovers from such shocks, in terms of restored capacity and speed to recovery, has a major impact on ongoing global photosynthetic capacity.
I suspect there is quite a long way to go before earth reaches its photosynthetic limit, but that is an opinion, not a scientific insight.
Funny that greenhouse growers artificially raise the level of CO2 two to three times that of the ambient CO2 level to get their plants to grow healthier and faster. Doesn’t seem to be stressing them at all. Plants evolved in an era when CO2 was many times higher than the current levels. The paper acknowledges that plants are doing better under increased CO2 but can’t let go of their belief that increased CO2 will eventually harm the environment. Sounds like someone is worried about losing their funding if it is actually proven that CO2 is harmless or that the world is actually cooling.
Nature in the form of plants are the main unknown here in the CO2 conundrum. It’s been known for quite a while that forests (and some quite small forested areas) seasonally affect the local weather patterns and the local climate (see https://www.quantamagazine.org/forests-emerge-as-a-major-overlooked-climate-factor-20181009/ ). But so too does ground hugging scrub plants as Allan Savory shows in his video (see more at https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI ).
Isn’t nature wonderful, I’m glad it is in control of our climate and not fickle and feckless humans.
Can anyone answer a question for someone who last did biology at school .
So as far the plant photosynthesis goes, 6 molecules of the gas (CO2) taken from the air by the plant contains 6 atoms of CARBON. The plant then uses sunlight energy and nutrients from the ground to make sugars which contain 6 atoms of CARBON now, but at night during RESPIRATION it then releases the CO 2 X 6 back IN TO AIR.
So if you 10 had plants, it would still be 10 x 6CO2 MOLECULES (= 60 Carbon atoms) taken in in the day, but then 10 x 6 CO2 MOLECULES ( =60 Carbon atoms) get released at night.
So where and how do plants help remove CO2 from the air ?
Anyone .