Fossil leaves show high atmospheric carbon spurred ancient ‘global greening’

A unique New Zealand deposit opens insights into how modern climate change may proceed

EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

IMAGE
IMAGE: A 23-MILLION-YEAR-OLD LEAF PRESERVED IN A ONETIME NEW ZEALAND LAKE BED, KEY TO PAST ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS. ONE CAN SEE VEINS, GLANDS ALONG THE TEETH, AND HOLES GNAWED BY INSECTS, WITH… view more CREDIT: JENNIFER BANNISTER/UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO

Scientists studying leaves from a 23-million-year-old forest have for the first time linked high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide with increased plant growth, and the hot climate off the time. The finding adds to the understanding of how rising CO2 heats the earth, and how the dynamics of plant life could shift within decades, when CO2 levels may closely mirror those of the distant past.

Scientists retrieved the leaves from a unique onetime New Zealand lake bed that holds the remains of plants, algae, spiders, beetle, flies, fungi and other living things from a warm period known as the early Miocene. Scientists have long postulated that CO2 was high then, and some plants could harvest it more efficiently for photosynthesis. This is the first study to show that those things actually happened in tandem. The findings were published this week in the journal Climate of the Past.

“The amazing thing is that these leaves are basically mummified, so we have their original chemical compositions, and can see all their fine features under a microscope,” said lead author Tammo Reichgelt, an adjunct scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and assistant professor of geosciences at the University of Connecticut. “Evidence has been building that CO2 was high then, but there have been paradoxes.”

The so-called “carbon fertilization effect” has vast implications. Lab and field experiments have shown that when CO2 levels rise, many plants increase their rate of photosynthesis, because they can more efficiently remove carbon from the air, and conserve water while doing so. Indeed, a 2016 study based on NASA satellite data shows a “global greening” effect mainly due to rising levels of manmade CO2 over recent decades; a quarter to a half of the planet’s vegetated lands have seen increases in leaf volume on trees and plants since about 1980. The effect is expected to continue as CO2 levels rise.

This might seem like good news, but the reality is more complex. Increased CO2 absorption will not come close to compensating for what humans are pouring into the air. Not all plants can take advantage, and among those who do, the results can vary depending on temperature and availability of water or nutrients. And, there is evidence that when some major crops photosynthesize more rapidly, they absorb relatively less calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals vital for human nutrition. Because much of today’s plant life evolved in a temperate, low-CO2 world, some natural and agricultural ecosystems could be upended by higher CO2 levels, along with the rising temperatures and shifts in precipitation they bring. “How it plays out is anyone’s guess,” said Reichgelt. “It’s another layer of stress for plants. It might be great for some, and horrible for others.”

The deposit is located in a small, long-extinct volcanic crater now located on a farm near the southern New Zealand city of Dunedin. The crater, about a kilometer across, once held an isolated lake where successive layers of sediments built up from the surrounding environment. The feature was recognized only within about the last 15 years; scientists dubbed it Foulden Maar. Recognizing it as a scientific gold mine, they have been studying it ever since. Some have also been fighting an actual mining company that wants to strip the deposit for livestock feed.

In the new study, the researchers took samples from a 2009 drill core that penetrated 100 meters to near the bottom of the now-dry lake bed. Larded in between whitish annual layers of silica-rich algae that bloomed each spring for 120,000 years are alternating blackish layers of organic matter that fell in during other seasons. These include countless leaves from a subtropical evergreen forest. They are preserved so perfectly that scientists can see microscopic veins and stomata, the pores by which leaves take in air and concurrently release water during photosynthesis. Unlike most fossils, the leaves also retain their original chemical compositions. It is the only such known deposit in the Southern Hemisphere, and far better preserved than the few similar ones known from the north.

The Miocene has long been a source of confusion for paleoclimate researchers. Average global temperatures are thought to have been 3 to 7 degrees C hotter than today, and ice largely disappeared at the poles. Yet many proxies, mainly derived from marine organisms, have suggested CO2 levels were only about 300 parts per million-similar to those of preindustrial human times, and not enough to account for such warming. With evidence of high CO2 elusive, scientists have speculated that previous proxy measurements must be off.

Based on the new study and a related previous one also at Foulden Maar, the researchers were able to get at this conundrum. They analyzed the carbon isotopes within leaves from a half-dozen tree species found at various levels in the deposit. This helped them zero in on the carbon content of the atmosphere at the time. They also analyzed the geometry of the leaves’ stomata and other anatomical features, and compared these with modern leaves. By combining all the data into a model, they found that atmospheric CO2 was not 300ppm, but about 450-a good match for the temperature data. Second, they showed that the trees were super-efficient at sucking in carbon through the stomata, without leaking much water through the same route-a factor that all plants must account for. This allowed them to grow in marginal areas that otherwise would have been too dry for forests. The researchers say this higher efficiency was very likely mirrored in forests across the northern temperate latitudes, with their far greater landmasses.

Human emissions have now pushed CO2 levels to about 415 parts per million, and they will almost certainly reach 450 by about 2040-identical to those experienced by the Foulden Maar forest. Estimates of the resulting temperature increases over decades and centuries vary, but the new study suggests that most are in the ballpark.

“It all fits together, it all makes sense,” said study coauthor William D’Andrea, a paleoclimate scientist at Lamont-Doherty. In addition to showing how plants might react directly to CO2, “this should give us more confidence about how temperatures will change with CO2 levels,” he said.

Study coauthor Daphne Lee, a paleontologist at New Zealand’s University of Otago, led the charge to study Foulden Maar’s rich ecosystem after it came to light. More recently, she became an unexpected defender of the maar, when a company with owners in Malaysia and the United Kingdom announced plans to strip-mine the deposit for use as a feed additive for for pigs, ducks and other intensively farmed animals. With many more discoveries probably to be made, scientists were horrified, and allied themselves with locals who feared noise and dust. The Dunedin city council is now looking into buying the land to protect it.

###

The study was also coauthored by Ailín del Valdivia-McCarthy, a former intern at Lamont-Doherty; Bethany Fox of the University of Huddersfield; Jennifer Bannister of the University of Otago; John Conran of the University of Adelaide; and William Lee of the University of Auckland.

The paper, ‘Elevated CO2 increased leaf-level productivity and water use efficiency in the early Miocene,’ can be obtained from the authors or media@egu.eu.

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory is Columbia University’s home for Earth science research. Its scientists develop fundamental knowledge about the origin, evolution and future of the natural world, from the planet’s deepest interior to the outer reaches of its atmosphere, on every continent and in every ocean, providing a rational basis for the difficult choices facing humanity. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu | @LamontEarth

The Earth Institute, Columbia University mobilizes the sciences, education and public policy to achieve a sustainable earth. http://www.earth.columbia.edu.

From EurekAlert!

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
80 Comments
August 20, 2020 2:23 pm

“This might seem like good news, but the reality is more complex. Increased CO2 absorption will not come close to compensating for what humans are pouring into the air.”

Of course there can be NO good news, not even a wiff of it.

Remember not so long ago when humans stopped POURING CO² into the air…..errr it still poured into the air.

“Not all plants can take advantage, and among those who do, the results can vary depending on temperature and availability of water or nutrients.”

The majority of plants will take advantage, and that majority will grow where it’s good for them to grow, where temperature, water and nutrients are plentiful.

The Amazon, the Congo, the Sumatran rainforest, the Bialowieza forest of Europe, the Daintree rainforest of Australia millions of years old, the list goes on.
All will take advantage and continue the Global Greening as pointed out in your alarmist article.

“….some natural and agricultural ecosystems could be upended by higher CO2 levels”

Really? where? which ones? upended by adding what? another 100ppm, 200ppm of CO²…..

…..you’re off your rocker.

August 20, 2020 2:37 pm

Once again we get a prediction that increased CO2 is going to cause us all to starve because of decreased harvests.

“And, there is evidence that when some major crops photosynthesize more rapidly, they absorb relatively less calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals vital for human nutrition. Because much of today’s plant life evolved in a temperate, low-CO2 world, some natural and agricultural ecosystems could be upended by higher CO2 levels, along with the rising temperatures and shifts in precipitation they bring. “How it plays out is anyone’s guess,” said Reichgelt. “It’s another layer of stress for plants. It might be great for some, and horrible for others.””

So there *is* going to be a tipping point where our currently increasing global harvests every year will start going down. We don’t know what the tipping point is but we *KNOW* it exists.

I can go the the local county fair and get the same kind of prediction from the lady with the crystal ball!

August 20, 2020 3:48 pm

Isn’t it convenient how their revised CO2 estimate just “happened” to coincide with what today’s MODELS are predicting and that the value they derived just happens to be a few decades in the future under the current emissions regime? Except that today’s models are running hot, suggesting CO2 would need to be much higher to supposedly attain their estimated temperature. And their interpretation of leaf structure and chemistry supposedly provides an accurate estimate of atmospheric CO2 23 million years ago. Also, how did they derive a global average temperature from samples collected from a single New Zealand lake bed on a remote island in the South Pacific?

OldCynic
August 20, 2020 4:03 pm

Nearly as perceptive as Thomas Huxley. My two favourites of his:

– The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. [Collected Essays, 1894, Biogenesis and Abiogenesis]

– Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. [Speech at the Natural History Museum, on the unveiling of a statue of Charles Darwin. Quoted in Herbert Spencer, ‘The Factors of Organic Evolution’, The Nineteenth Century (April/May 1886)]

or, from Johann Goethe:

As soon as any one belongs to a narrow creed in science, every unprejudiced and true perception is gone. [Conversation (18 May 1824), with Johann Peter Eckermanns, in Conversations with Goethe (1850) ]

gbaikie
August 20, 2020 4:35 pm

“Human emissions have now pushed CO2 levels to about 415 parts per million, and they will almost certainly reach 450 by about 2040-identical to those experienced by the Foulden Maar forest.”

Let’s cut some leaves, and measure CO2 levels that way.
Why do it from a mountain top and mess with flasks of air.

The big difference between a 23-million-year-old forest and our present forests, is we in Ice Age, and 23 million years ago we were not.
And when not in Ice Age, you have less deserts and more forests.
And our ocean temperature is about 3.5 C and 23 millions years ago the ocean was close to 10 C.
In last couple million years of our Ice Age the ocean temperature has been in the temperature range of 1 to 5 C

MarkW
August 20, 2020 7:00 pm

CO2 levels 23 million years ago were around 450ppm. If nothing changes, CO2 levels in the modern era will reach 450ppm in about 20 years.
Ergo, the world will be as hot as it was 23 million years ago, in 20 years.

Once again, the climate scientist assumes that absolutely nothing else in the world has changed during the last 23 million years.

Bob boder
Reply to  MarkW
August 21, 2020 10:37 am

the worlds CO2 levels were 450 ppm BECAUSE the world was warmer not the other way around. This is just more proof.

Zane
August 20, 2020 9:36 pm

Gee, whoda thunk dat?

Rod Evans
August 20, 2020 10:46 pm

Quote from William D’Andrea.
“this should give us more confidence about how temperatures will change with CO2 levels,” he said.
Here is what he should have said, which would have resolved his uncertainty about the role of CO2.

“this should give us confidence about how CO2 levels will change with temperature.”
Correction from, Rod D’Vera

griff
August 21, 2020 8:35 am

The important bit of the above:

‘This might seem like good news, but the reality is more complex. Increased CO2 absorption will not come close to compensating for what humans are pouring into the air. Not all plants can take advantage, and among those who do, the results can vary depending on temperature and availability of water or nutrients. And, there is evidence that when some major crops photosynthesize more rapidly, they absorb relatively less calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals vital for human nutrition.’

so not all plants benefit and there are disbenefits as regards human nutrition. Then of course there are the impacts of droughts, storms to consider…

Reply to  griff
August 21, 2020 10:11 am

Griff,

How do you know that the plants that benefit aren’t those most important for food?

Go read up on evolution sometime.

What about droughts and storms? We haven’t seen any noticeable increase in either up to this point. Do you believe we will reach a tipping point that will cause these to increase drastically?

Remember, inland CA and the central US have been semi-arid deserts for literally centuries if not millenia. Hurricanes have inundated Florida for centuries if not millenia. You can tell from the trees and grasses around the US that their climates have been the same for literally centuries if not millenia. The prairie grasses of the central plains have evolved over literal centuries to develop the root systems to survive the dry conditions of a semi-arid desert. It’s the same with the savannahs of central Africa.

There is literally *NO* evidence that this is going to change over the next century. “Average global temperature” is meaningless. You can’t tell from the average if the minimum temps are going up, a good thing, or if maximum temps are going up. Not having paid attention in 6th grade math you don’t see to have a good grasp of that. You just assume that if the average is going up then that must mean the maximums are going up.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
August 22, 2020 6:46 am

Again, since you are so intentionally dense, more plant food means more plants, more plants means more oxygen and people/animal food. I understand you are too stupid to grasp such basic and simple facts, I will just keep repeating them at you till you go away again. Remember, you left and declared you would never return, and yet here you are spewing stupidity yet again.

Teewee
August 21, 2020 6:19 pm

I am a little confused. We have research that CO2 is not a driver of global warming but follows natural climate change. It would appear from the gist of the story that the authors believe that C02 is now a driving factor.

Clyde Spencer
August 21, 2020 6:22 pm

Tim
And, the minimum temps are increasing faster than the max’ temps are:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/

griff
August 25, 2020 12:51 am

More CO2 is not universally good for plants. From the Aug 20th Watts article on similar theme:

“Increased CO2 absorption will not come close to compensating for what humans are pouring into the air. Not all plants can take advantage, and among those who do, the results can vary depending on temperature and availability of water or nutrients. And, there is evidence that when some major crops photosynthesize more rapidly, they absorb relatively less calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals vital for human nutrition. Because much of today’s plant life evolved in a temperate, low-CO2 world, some natural and agricultural ecosystems could be upended by higher CO2 levels, along with the rising temperatures and shifts in precipitation they bring. “How it plays out is anyone’s guess,” said Reichgelt. “It’s another layer of stress for plants. It might be great for some, and horrible for others.” ”

And that’s before you add in the impacts of drought, storm and wildfire.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2020 5:25 am

More Co2 means more plants, more plants means more oxygen and food, more Co2 is a positive. Tell whatever lies you want, griffie, more Co2 is a positive. Now cry about that some more and tell more lies. It is all you got.

Joel Snider
Reply to  2hotel9
August 25, 2020 11:03 am

Opportunistically dishonest little prick, isn’t he?

2hotel9
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 26, 2020 6:11 am

Intentionally obtuse and dense, not man enough to be a prick. Wait till it really gets sand in its mangina, very entertaining then.