By Vijay Jayaraj
How can carbon dioxide, which has been portrayed as a dangerous pollutant threatening the very existence of humankind, be considered even remotely beneficial? Sadly, such a question can be expected from people – children and adults – who have been fed irrational fears in place of well-established science that shows CO2 to be an irreplaceable food for plants and necessary for all life.
Even some who recognize CO2 as sustenance consider increasing atmospheric concentrations of the gas to be potentially catastrophic, a view devoid of scientific basis and inimical to the fortunes of malnourished millions.
Corn, or maize, is foundational—along with rice, wheat, soyabean—to global food security, serving as a critical source of nourishment for both humans and livestock. Over the past few decades, increases in atmospheric CO2 from industrial emissions have tracked with notable boosts in corn yields.
Between 1900 and 2024, the national corn yield in the U.S. rose to 183 bushels per acre (bu/A) from just 28 bushels. During the same period, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 parts per million (ppm) to 419 ppm. Worldwide, corn yield rose from a mere 29 bu/A in 1961 to 86 bu/A in 2021.
This phenomenon is not merely coincidental; it is deeply rooted in the physiological characteristics of corn as a C4 category plant. C4 plants like corn – so named for the number of carbon atoms in their photosynthetic product — possess unique biochemical pathways that make their photosynthesis particularly efficient under high concentrations of CO2 and elevated temperatures. Such plants employ a mechanism that concentrates CO2 in specialized structures called bundle sheath cells.
Higher CO2 levels also improve water-use efficiency in corn, which is particularly beneficial where water supplies are limited or during droughts. This efficiency translates into enhanced growth rates and potentially greater yields. In fact, researchers say that “less water will be required for corn under a high-CO2 environment in the future than at present.”
Augmented corn yields driven by increased atmospheric CO2 have had profound effects worldwide, contributing to an agricultural boom that bolstered farm incomes and enhanced food security across diverse regions. Countries like the U.S. with significant corn production have experienced elevated export revenues, strengthening national economies and their positions in the global market.
But this remarkable impact of elevated CO2 is not just limited to C4 crops like corn. C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, potatoes, and soybeans, all rely on an enzyme called rubisco for carbon fixation. Rubisco’s efficiency improves significantly with higher CO2 concentrations because it reduces the enzyme’s tendency to bind with oxygen—a process known as photorespiration that limits productivity.
Consequently, elevated atmospheric CO2 often results in enhanced photosynthesis and biomass accumulation in C3 species, although to a lesser extent than with C4 plants. This is why rice and wheat yields can increase by up to 20-30% under elevated CO2 conditions. We have witnessed this in yield increases across most C3 food crops.
Notably, greenhouse farming—agronomy practiced inside a translucent tent to retain the sun’s warmth—often uses CO2 concentrations artificially increased to more than twice ambient levels to enhance growth.
The relationship between rising atmospheric CO2 and crop yields is clearly a positive one. So, ignore fearmongering media headlines about toxic human CO2 emissions. You, your family and the industries that support our society have greened the planet with daily emissions of carbon dioxide, making food more plentiful and affordable for those grappling with poverty and everybody else.
This commentary was first published at California Globe on September 18, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research and Science Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K., and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, U.K.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m sure there are many on the climate hysteria community that think that this is a bad thing the CO2 is helping corn yields. Too many people on the earth already, doncha know.
I get the point 😉 in fact together with increasing crop yields the world fertility rate has fallen considerably since 1950 and will no doubt fall further with the inevitable further hydrocarbon-fuelled development in Asia and Africa.
New headline – Increased CO2 reduces Human Fertility. 😉
Causes ED! 🙂
But Sherrington’s Postulate is that higher atmospheric CO2 emissions increase tooth mass. Geoff S
Chris, are you saying that is a bad thing? Having 8 children by parents that can barely support 2 only increases the mortality rate. If you want the world to stop warming, figure out why it is heating up. It isn’t from CO2.
1968, The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich. Determined the world’s population needs to be kept below 2 billion or some such number. This has been in the background of the Climate Syndicate for nearly as long as the fearmongering and there is a credible suspicion that it is more than an interesting side topic.
Yeah. We were fed that nonsense back then. Apparently, the only way a computer model would predict no die-back was to roll the world population back to a billion. The idiot leftists have been trying to remove the excess (read conservatives) ever since.
oh no. more ethanol for our gasoline (actually, your gasoline) and more high fructose for our cheap beer (actually, your cheap beer)
More bourbon. There’s that…
There has also been quite a lot of plant breeding and fertilizer in use, especially since the 1930’s in the US. What would be interesting would be to estimate yield increases for Mexican/Central American peasants growing Landrace Maize with milpa agriculture.
Yes, the period in question,1900-2024, has seen many changes in farming methods for moisture retention, fertilizer application, herbicides, pesticides, grain storage, soil testing, better planting and harvesting equipment plus continual work on breeding better plants…plus, if there is demand and good prices, farmers will figure out how to grow more, weather permitting…..
More atmospheric CO2 is only a fraction of the story….
I think the author’s point was not to do a complete attribution study of how and why agricultural production has increased so drastically during the 20th and early 21st century. Rather, his purpose was to call bullshit on the warmunist cassandras who constantly tell us we’re all going to die because of CO2 concentration increases. If their propaganda had any basis in fact, then we wouldn’t be seeing all time highs in agricultural production … meaning, quite obviously, that we’re not all going to die because of CO2 emissions.
Currently…
Brazil
For 2023/2024, Brazil’s corn yield is projected to be 90 bushels per acre, which is 5% below the global average. Brazil’s corn production is often a second crop after soybeans
Argentina
For 2023/2024, Argentina’s corn yield is projected to be 123 bushels per acre, which is 31% above the global average. Argentina’s corn yields have been more volatile than Brazil’s or the US’s since 2000, which may be due to economic instability and extreme weather
Mexico
In 2023, Mexico produced 26.8 million metric tons of corn
Mexico didn’t include a per acre figure
Though all expressed in Metric Tons
In 2023, the production volume of maize or corn reached over 130 million metric tons in Brazil. Ranking second was Argentina, with a production volume of 60 million metric tons, followed by Mexico, with 26.8 million produced
This interactive chart shows the 23-24 season yields in tons for (almost) every country
The chart link didn’t post…lets try again
https://fas.usda.gov/data/production/commodity/0440000
Previous post listed 85 Bu/A. Up from 29 with lower atmospheric CO2.
Yeah yeah that’s all very corny but climate change is making El Nino and La Nina more impossible to predict so we have to make the computer models more dynamical-
Global heating is making El Niño and La Niña forecasts less reliable, BoM says | Australia weather | The Guardian
It’s worse than we thought.
The Guardian or their writers obviously receive a cash award from someone every time they fear monger with climate tales. They bring it up far too often for it to be a random topic.
I think it’s a prerequisite for every article published there to have not only a tie in to GlobalWarming™ but must also include a major negative effect on whatever the subject of the article is about.
Ad click revenues are directly proportional to hyperbole in the headlines.
By using the carbon in CO2, plants give off oxygen, how convenient!
They use the entire CO2 molecule. The oxygen comes from the water a plant takes in.
Thank you for the information. Does that imply that the plants use the hydrogen from water?
Yes. 6CO2 +6H2O +sunlight = C6-H12-O6 +6O2 the sugar molecule is created during photosynthesis and oxygen is released. I’m sure there are others that can more completely answer this but this is what I recall from high school chemistry.
The hydrogen goes into the carbohydrate C6H12O6 that makes up the bulk of the plant.
It is an educational activity to find photos & video of the planting and harvesting of corn in the late 1800s in the USA compared with today. A place to start:
https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/a-thing-of-the-past-check-row-planters/372478.html
Very nice Vijay.
“Worldwide, corn yield rose from a mere 29 bu/A in 1961 to 86 bu/A in 2021.” Vijay
The article implies increased CO2 is the main cause of increased corn yields. That is false.
No data are presented to support that message..
There was a green revolution in farming in India i the 1960s NOT caused by rising CO2. Vijay lives in India and should know that.
The Green Revolution was initiated in the 1960’s to address the issue of malnutrition in the developing world. The technology of the Green Revolution involved bio-engineered seeds that worked in conjunction with chemical fertilizers and heavy irrigation to increase crop yields
increase in ambient CO 2 to 800-1,000 ppm can increase yield of C3 plants up to 40%-100% percent and C4 plants by 10%-25% while keeping other inputs at an optimum level.
Corn is a C4 plant
“That is false.”
Really? C4 plants benefit from an increase in CO2 too. I don’t understand your point. Most green plants are C3–95%. C4 plants make up about 3-4%. The remaining are CAM plants. Pineapple is a CAM plant. However, most CAM plants are desert plants. CAM plants are essentially C4 plants that only open their pores at night–to conserve moisture.
“Supercharging” in the article title is a gross exaggeration. Very close to BS.
C4 plants are about 1% to 4% of species but they are a much larger percetage of crops use for food. Corn is the top US food crop.
About one third of everything that Americans eat today is directly or indirectly traceable to corn. Why is this true? Corn (vegetable) oil, corn flour, corn meal, corn syrup and corn starch are major ingredients in a vast majority of foods.
As a general rule of thumb, I wrote that 800 to 1000 ppm of CO2 could increase C4 yields 10% to 25%
Starting at ambient CO2 of about 400 ppm, 800 ppm would be a 100% increase and 1000 ppm would be about a 150% increase.
The actual CO2 increase from 1961 to 2021, a period mentioned in the article was:
1961 318 ppm CO2
2021 416 ppm CO2
Chage of +31%
Corn yield increase from 1961 to 2021
29 to 86: Almost 200%
A 31% increase of atmospheric CO2 was NOT the cause of the almost 200% increase of corn yields. The actual effect might have been too small to measure.
The “supercharge” word in the title is BS
I have the data
You have the claptrap
“Supercharging” in the article title is a gross exaggeration.
Concur.
250ppm is stomata solidly packed…. subsistence level.
2016… 318ppm is “usable” CO2 of 68ppm
2021… 416ppm is “usable” CO2 of 166ppm
Change of +144%
You certainly have the claptrap… as usual.
“You have the claptrap”
All I can say is, “Heh!”
“heavy irrigation to increase crop yields”
Much of those in poor areas live where there is *not* sufficient water for heavy irrigation (see Africa). Yet they have seen better harvests. Some of the reason is certainly development of seed stock better able to utilize existing moisture but CO2 fertilization is certainly a large factor.
CO2 is a small factor for C4 plants like corn.
CO2 makes up a large part of every plant.
Didn’t you know that?
More CO2 available over subsistence level (around 250ppm).. more plant. !!
No, the article implies nothing. It states the facts. Which facts absolutely and completely discredit the warmunist narrative that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and we’re all going to die because a tiny trace gas has increased slightly in the last century. The author did not engage in a complete attributional study – he just looked at the end result and concludes obviously that we’re not going to hell in a handbasket due to rising CO2.
If the cassandra warmunists had a leg to stand on, they’d be able to explain how NOT going to hell in a handbasket is going to make us go to hell in a handbasket anyway.
What is it about the greatest food production, the highest standard of living, the longest human longevity, the lowest infant and child mortality, the highest technological and artistical achievements, the greatest extent of human freedom and self determination, the lowest level of human-on-human violence, the greatest level of human comfort and enjoyment in all 300 thousand years of the existence of humanity that indicates CO2 increases are somehow a disaster?
You do realize, don’t you, that the very reason civilization and all that it brings exists is because of the rise of agriculture about 10 thousand years ago … a process that was possible only when the ice melted and the Earth warmed up.
The effects of CO2 enrichment on C3 and C4 plants has been studied many thousands of times
I have read about 200 of such studies since 1997
Claiming that CO2 enrichment supercharges C4 plant growth is a gross exaggeration.
Read, by not understood… we know that from your comments.
CO2 is drawn down quickly by morning growth,
Enhanced atmospheric CO2 means a lot longer growing period each day.
Available CO2 (above 250ppm) has risen some 150%.
Biology is yet another subject you are proving yourself “a loser” at
“800-1,000 ppm”
WT* are you gibbering about this time. !!
Unfortunately, atmospheric levels are nowhere near that level..
So why use those values… just DUMB. !
Because CO2 enrichment studies use CO2 levels from 600 to 1000 ppm to measure the long term effects of CO2 enrichment, that’s why, dimwit.
An increase from 430 ppm to 530 ppm CO2 would probably cause biomass changes too small to measure in C4 plats.
And yet we see a massive biomass change in the last 50 years as “available” CO2 remains around the crops for so much longer each day.
Or don’t you understand that the daily CO2 patterns over crops is very important?
Remain clueless, RG, it is what you do best.
“The article implies…”
In other words, your interpretation is….
You might benefit from reading it again.
“Over the past few decades, increases in atmospheric CO2 from industrial emissions have tracked with notable boosts in corn yields.”
That sentence clearly states there is a correlation, not a causation.
CO2 contributes to the yield increases but the article does not claim it is the sole cause..
According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, about 40% of the corn used in the U.S. is fed to animals. Another 40-45% is used to make ethanol biofuel and the remaining 20% of corn used in the U.S. is made into human food products or other industrial uses.
Apparently you do not understand that the grain that is fed to livestock gets converted to food for humans. As for biofuels, that is driven by dumb warmunism and enviro policy that you cannot turn around and blame on the agriculture industry.
So 60% is used for producing human food..
…. and the rest is wasted on virtue-seeking.
There are different varieties of corn involved.
Needless to say, the ethanol part of it is taking food out of the supply chain.
I agree. Corn should not be used as fuel. However, the corn lobby is strong, and it seems the corn states support the process.
Any discussion of climate should start with answering the question: Why does the Earth offer such benign existence conditions?
And about CO2 – most of it comes from outgassing from the sea!
only when the sea is warming, During glacial maximums doesn’t sea CO2 go way up?Thats like 5% errr…50,000 ppm I think, I can’t find my abacus.
Nothing can be attributed to one cause or one factor.
Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years. Your comment has some outgassing.
Still waiting for your evidence of CO2 warming
All you ever do is “outgas”
Data shows that rate of CO2 growth follows very closely to ocean atmospheric temperature…
… even to a surge at El Nino events, and a step up after them.. just like temperatures do.
Humans CO2 emissions are only 4% or so of the total CO2 flux, so any change in the natural flux, like from natural warming, easily overwhelms any human CO2 input.
So, are we back to the Let There Be Light versus The Big Bang discussion?
The Earth, fortunately for us, contains massive amounts of water and is in the sweet spot of all solar orbits. Not too hot, not too cold, just right. Of course with variations, but even the Ice Ages were not too cold for human life, just more challenging.
“. . . Let There Be Light . . . .”
This reminds me of the sciifi short story by Asimov: “The Last Question.”
Carbon dioxide is, almost literally, the Manna from Heaven.
Humor is a difficult concept.
Manna is likely more of a religious concept than “literally” a real food. Commentaries on this phenomenon are more about a person’s relationship to God, more so than what manna was or how used. So, while CO2 is real, manna might not have been. Literally!
Humor is a difficult concept.
Dear Vijay Jayaraj,
C4 plants are not sensitive to increased levels of CO2 and maize is a C4 plant.
Feed them more CO2 and nothing will happen. Only C3 plants respond to elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
Reference: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00288233.1996.9513213
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch com.au
Corn *does* benefit from increased CO2, just not as much as C3 plants do. Seed companies are working to develop corn that can benefit more from increased CO2 by doing things like developing corn that has fewer stomata on the leaves and producing plants that actually have less of the enzyme that fixes CO2 and produces more of the CO2 acceptor molecule resulting in an overall increase in the resource balance inside the plant.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/z/zeam.php
Many tests show very strong response of corn to 300ppm above ambient (around 300ppm)
nb… your study isn’t even about corn.
Total BS
While 95%+ of studies are of C3 plants, every study of C4 plants I have read since 1997 reflected a modest improvement of biomass from CO2 enrichment.
It was once believed that CO2 saturation for C4 plants was 400 ppm. The studies showed that belief was false.
Again, people are not comprehending how CO2 enhancement works in a real crop situation.
Crops draw down the available CO2 quite quickly during the day, slowing right down when it drops to 220-250ppm or so.
The longer there is available CO2 above 250ppm, the longer the daily growing period of the plants, and the more plant growth you get.
Studies has shown this is what actually happens.
At atmospheric levels of 250ppm you might start the morning with 400ppm available over the crop which gets drawn down in say 3-4 hours of growth.. then not much more.
Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 available, give you much longer period of growth each day.
Simply not true, but the benefit is reduced. C4 plants evolved much more recently and were an adaption to lower ambient CO2 levels.
Dear Richard and drhealy,
Simply is true. The thesis put forward here is that yields of corn will be supercharged by elevated CO2, which is not true.
It takes no time at all using Google Scholar to confirm that thesis (or not).
While my interest was ecological, at the time I wrote that paper which was published 28 years ago, I made several visits to a team at CSIRO who were investigating the biochemistry of C4 metabolism particularly in relation to engineering hybrid C3/C4 cereals, with the goal of increasing crop yield per unit water used. But as far as I am aware (and I am not in that field anymore and everyone else is retired), the goal remains elusive to this day.
The conundrum in my mind was that all the most widely dispersed species across semi-arid and arid zones in Australia were C4. Furthermore, if you took those species into more “favourable” environments, they generally did very poorly.
C4 photosynthesis is an adaption to drought/water use efficiency not high growth rates or low CO2 per se. Thus, studies need careful interpretation.
While many papers use metastudies to understand the C4 mechanisms and predict responses to elevated CO2 – and thereby propose/suppose one could engineer C4 photosynthesis into C3 crops that account for most global grain production (wheat, rice, oats barley etc.). However, despite years of work, no new ‘outstanding’ crop types have emerged. That is not to say there are no higher-yielding varieties – there are, but they are not C3/C4 hybrids.
Higher yields are generally associated with reduced allocation of photosynthates to structural plant components – stems, leaves; and higher allocation to yield components – flag-leaves and grain. Also changed maturity patterns – shorter stature, later sowing and shorter seasons allows C3 crops to grown in lower rainfall areas.
In the case of maize and sorghum (the two main crops – millet and teff are also C4, but not economically important crops), grain yield is not the same as leaf or whole plant yield. The grain-yield ratio can actually decline as N and water supply (and CO2) increases, which in a practical sense is not much use. Likewise, fewer stomates means less gas exchange, and generally lower production.
Look at this 2006 paper – Photosynthesis, Productivity, and Yield of Maize Are Not Affected by Open-Air Elevation of CO2 Concentration in the Absence of Drought.
The summary makes perfect sense:
In the absence of water stress, growth at elevated [CO2] did not stimulate photosynthesis, biomass, or yield. Nor was there any CO2 effect on the activity of key photosynthetic enzymes, or metabolic markers of carbon and nitrogen status. Stomatal conductance was lower (234%) and soil moisture was higher (up to 31%), consistent with reduced crop water use. The results provide unique field evidence that photosynthesis and production of maize may be unaffected by rising [CO2] in the absence of drought. This suggests that rising [CO2] may not provide the full dividend to North American maize production anticipated in projections of future global food supply.
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Denitrification followed by methanogenesis and fermentation take place in the soil root zone.
It’s all natural and good for plant growth.
Yeah, well, so? We all know that corn is evil because it is used to feed people who emit CO2, and cattle and pigs who fart methane and are eaten by all those carbon emitting evil people.
Earth would be a paradise if all the people and pigs and cattle just disappeared.
I find your comment humorous.😄
You read The Population Bomb?
A good thing corn yields are rapidly increasing given the amount of corn for food diverted to corn for biofuel.
Yes, CO2 fertilization is having an impressive effect, however the development of the Haber- Bosch process of creating ammonia based fertilizers rich in nitrogen has probably been a more significant factor.
After looking at the growth charts listed on the CO2 Science Blog I concluded that the birch and alder trees in my area were growing over 20% faster than they were in 1960. Quite impressive.
There was a liberal college professor on TV a few years ago who claimed that corn prices were increasing because the yields were decreasing as a result of higher CO2 levels. I wish I had a chance to refute her. Her statement is demonstrably false as corn yields are not decreasing at all but increasing as shown by the USDA data. A more likely reason for increasing prices is that about 40% of the corn production goes into ethanol production which is added to gasoline as required by federal law. That increases the demand and drives up prices.
Minimum wage, federal regulations, supply chain disruptions all contribute to inflation and that does not include the excessive, irrational piling on of national debt.
I’ve read [not found this morning, however] a rapidly growing field of corn can exhaust the available CO2, especially on a day with no wind to exchange the air in the field with a fresh supply. I suspect a vineyard would do the same as both corn and grapevines grow rapidly in the spring. One can notice the change on a sunny day, if there rather than in front of a computer screen! 😎
See my comments further up.
You are totally correct.. I have seen those papers too.
Even seen graphs of “CO2 over crops on a windless day.”
Started well above ambient, dropped down, then levelled off after a few hours as growth stalled.
Thought I had a pdf saved, but haven’t found it yet.