Community | August 21, 2010 | 6 comments

Rising temperatures reducing ability of plants to absorb carbon, study warns

Image
JanforGore
Droughts have wiped out plants that would have absorbed the carbon equivalent of all the man-made greenhouse gas emissions from the UK every year. Photograph: Patrick Pleul/EPA

Rising temperatures in the past decade have reduced the ability of the world's plants to soak up carbon from the atmosphere, scientists said today.

Large-scale droughts have wiped out plants that would have otherwise absorbed an amount of carbon equivalent to Britain's annual man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists measure the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed by plants and turned into biomass as a quantity known as the net primary production. NPP increased from 1982 to 1999 as temperatures rose and there was more solar radiation.

But the period from 2000 to 2009 reverses that trend – surprising some scientists. Maosheng Zhao and Steven Running of the University of Montana estimate that there has been a global reduction in NPP of 0.55 gigatonnes (Gt). In comparison, the UK's contribution to annual worldwide carbon dioxide emissions was 0.56Gt in 2007, while global aviation industry made up around 0.88Gt (3%) of the world total of 29.3Gt that year, according to UN data.

The researchers used data from the moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (Modis) on board Nasa's Terra satellite, combined with global climate data to measure the change in global NPP over the past decade.

"The past decade has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP," wrote Zhao and Running in the journal Science.

But instead of helping plants grow, these rising temperatures instead caused droughts and water stresses, particularly in the southern hemisphere and in rainforests, which contain most of the world's plant biomass. The growth there has been curtailed by lack of water and increased respiration, which returns carbon to the atmosphere. These problems counteracted any increases in NPP seen at the high latitudes and elevations in the northern hemisphere.

Reduced plant matter not only reduces the world's natural ability to manage carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but could also lead to problems with growing more crops to feed rising populations or make sustainable biofuels.

"Under a changing climate, severe regional droughts have become more frequent, a trend expected to continue for the foreseeable future," said the researchers. "The warming-associated heat and drought not only decrease NPP, but also may trigger many more ecosystem disturbances, releasing carbon to the atmosphere. Reduced NPP potentially threatens global food security and future biofuel production and weakens the terrestrial carbon sink."

The researchers conclude that further monitoring will be needed to confirm whether the decrease in NPP they have observed in the past decade is an anomaly or whether it signals a turning point to a future decline in the world's ability to sequester carbon dioxide.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Earth and Science,   Sustainable Agriculture,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Environment Climate Change Global Warming CO2 6 more
  3.     
    |

6 comments // Rising temperatures reducing ability of plants to absorb carbon, study warns

  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-09-07-british-soil_x.htm

      This is more than just a fluke and has been happening for at least the last decade. Soil is losing carbon and plants that could absorb it to balance the cycle are dying from the drought caused by the carbon escaping from the soil. A true viscious cycle. So this isn't about your pretty like graphs about the Middle Ages which you seem to be stuck in, this is about a clear indication of something that is already affecting our ability to feed people. Take your head out of your butt for once.
      _________
      Study finds British soil losing carbon
      By Michael Mcdonough, The Associated Press
      LONDON — Rising temperatures resulting from climate change are likely causing soil in England and Wales to lose large amounts of carbon, possibly further contributing to the greenhouse gas effect, according to a new British study which suggests the same trend could be affecting other countries.
      Soils store vast amounts of carbon — more than twice as much as in vegetation or the atmosphere. The amount of carbon in the soil is constant if the amount entering from dead vegetation — wood, leaves and roots — is equal to the amount being lost as soil microbes decompose the vegetation, releasing carbon dioxide.

      But research published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature found a disturbance in this natural balance. It estimated that British soil is losing 13 million tons of carbon a year — equivalent to 8.2% of Britain's carbon dioxide emissions in 2004.

      Many scientists believe that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap energy in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in global temperatures and changes in climate and weather patterns.

      The study, funded by the British government, found that the carbon losses affected all types of soil.

      "The fact that the losses appear to be happening ... irrespective of land use suggests a link to climate change," the report said, adding that over the 25-year survey period the mean temperature in England and Wales had risen by 0.5 C (0.9 F).

      "Microbes in the soil are more active at warmer temperatures. As temperatures rise, the turnover of soil carbon goes up," said report co-author Guy Kirk from the National Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield University north of London. Four of the team members came from the NSRI, and the fifth was from Rothamsted Research, a British agricultural research center.

      Their study suggested that while the increased global growth in vegetation is absorbing some of the carbon dioxide released by human activity, this is being offset by the loss of carbon from the soil.

      "The input side is going up because of carbon dioxide emissions, but the output is going up because of temperature rises," Kirk told The Associated Press in a phone interview.

      "The rate of loss is exceeding the rate of input. Past predictions had said this would happen in 10 to 50 years' time, but this study shows it is happening much faster. It is happening already in England and Wales," he said.

      In a commentary published in Nature, E. Detlef Schulze and Annette Freibauer of the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry questioned whether global warming was the reason.

      "According to our current understanding of the sensitivity of soil respiration to warming, increased temperature alone seems to be too weak a driver," they wrote, adding that changes in rainfall may have a stronger effect on carbon-rich soils.

      The British government-funded study was based on research that began 25 years ago. Scientists drew 5,662 soil samples from 6,000 sites across England and Wales between 1978 and 1983. The sites corresponded to the intersection points of a grid of 5-kilometer by 5-kilometer (3-mile by 3-mile) covering both countries. Some 340 of the sites — including urban areas and waterways — were unsuitable for taking soil samples.

      About 40% of the sites were sampled again in later years. The resampling occurred in three phases: in 1994-95 for arable and rotational grassland sites; in 1995-96 for managed permanent grassland sites; and in 2003 for nonagricultural sites, including bogs, scrub and woodland.

      The researchers said this was "the only soil inventory on such a scale anywhere in the world to have been resampled." Statistical projections showed that only 40% of the original sites needed to be resampled to accurately measure changes, Kirk said.

      The study found that the overall annual rate of change in the upper 15 centimeters (6 inches) of soil was -0.64% a year, compared with the original carbon content. For types of soil containing more carbon, this rate increased, reaching a rate of -7.37% a year for those sites richest in carbon.

      The researchers estimated that the annual loss from soil across the United Kingdom — including Scotland and Northern Ireland — was 13 million tons of carbon per year. In 2004, carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom reached 158.4 million tons, measured in carbon equivalent, according to Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

      Britain has set a target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. But in 2003, carbon dioxide emissions rose 2.2%.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -3
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      This is sheer desperation on your behalf. I really don't know why I'm even wasting my time responding, but...

      This is five years old, 2005. In that time we had a Labour (loonie-left) government. They were the most fierce proponents of AGW, even stooping so low as to show cartoons of childrens' puppies drowning on TV in order to scare kids into believing the planet is in danger - a vile and disgusting act that had to be removed from TV due to the lack of scientific evidence to support their claims. They were caught lying and exaggerating about climate change (and almost everything else) on so many occasions that the British people no longer believed a single thing they said. That is one government that did so much to bugger up your movement - you've got a lot to thank them for!!!

      That loonie government (voted out of power earlier this year) would do anything to promote their agenda, and funding surveys like this was just one of the ways they tried to 'prove' to the British people that things were looking so bad and that we must pay extra taxes and sell our industry to India in order to survive.
      And now the five year old study of carbon in soil is cause for concern? No.
      Warming temperatures mean more CO2 is absorbed into the atmosphere, which is a good thing. These gases will help regulate the earth's temperature, that's what 'greenhouse' gases do.
      Look at when the research was carried out, between 1978 and 1983, a natural warming period. What else would you expect than a slight decrease in soil carbon? But read on.
      As it was warmer in Britain during the Medieval warm period, surely we would have had the same problem with our soil then? So how did we manage to flourish since that time?
      Around 1petagram of CO2 has been given off by soils since 1989, but that is absorbed due to increasing photosynthesis by plants and certain bacteria. If the extra atmospheric CO2 was causing more warming, where is it? As you know, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that CO2 drives temperature, none at all.
      And then look where the article appears - Nature! Hardly renowned for impartiality.

      Grumbling about soils losing carbon is as meaningless as grumbling about the colour of clouds, it's all natural variation and absolutely nothing to worry about. However, if you want to use it as a tool to scare people with, you'll need to do a lot better.
      Follow the money - Pro-AGW Labour government fund a survey, what else did you expect other than a scare story? But if you read the article it isn't exactly too scary, especially when you read this:

      "In a commentary published in Nature, E. Detlef Schulze and Annette Freibauer of the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry questioned whether global warming was the reason.
      "According to our current understanding of the sensitivity of soil respiration to warming, increased temperature alone seems to be too weak a driver," they wrote, adding that changes in rainfall may have a stronger effect on carbon-rich soils.""

      So there's more to this than "global warming is killing our soil". How inconvenient!

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • IceKat:

      "This is sheer desperation on your behalf. I really don't know why I'm even wasting my time responding"

      Because you're afraid of me here because it's right. If what I was posting was total BS like what you post you wouldn't really bother. I don't bother with you, and you know why? Because again, you post tripe. But you are bothering with me because you know it is happening and this is more about you being "right" than about facts. You are seeing that CO2 can have an effect on life and it just irks you because you are making it personal instead of basing it on facts. And really, what person who is not an oil shill has an avatar stating " I love CO2? " who the hell do you think you're kidding? And I actually didn't mention global warming in my last response, although it is mentioned in the article, but what I stated was that soil was losing carbon and that the drought caused by it was causing plants that would have absorbed it to die.That is a real threat. So since you find it a waste to respond to me, which it is BTW, please do us all a favor and take your own advice.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      Afraid of you? Oh my god... this is unbelievable!!! And there you go again - trying to link me to oil... it's getting ever so tiresome...
      What I'm afraid of is someone reading the crap you spew out and actually believing it.
      And now you tell me a lack of carbon in soil causes droughts?
      So why then has there been increased and increasing plant growth over the past fifty years?

      "Hundreds of studies and extensive research conclusively show the link between CO2 levels and plant growth. Using a conservative estimate for the range of the recent atmosphere, for every 10 ppm that CO2 increases, plant growth increases roughly 1%. This varies from species to species and with other conditions/nutrients needed for growth. With CO2 levels rising from 280 ppm to 390 ppm (+110 ppm) since the Industrial Revolution, this equates to an 11% increase in plant growth."

      Yet another inconvenient truth! ;)

      Have a nice day.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • Image
    • "...further monitoring will be needed to confirm whether the decrease in NPP they have observed in the past decade is an anomaly or whether it signals a turning point to a future..."

      In other words the jury's still out. But The Guardian still decide to publish this anyway, being pro-AGW.

      Read this:
      "For year after year across vast areas of North America rainfall was low. Summers were parched and the heat excessive. Plants withered and sand dunes moved freely across a formerly green landscape. Human settlements had to be abandoned and populations migrated, forcing social change. By some measures the drought lasted more than a decade. "

      Imagine that, a drought lasting for more than a decade! Man-made Global warming? Not a chance, this drought was in the thirteenth century, but if it happened today, well, imagine the outcry, the calls for climate justice. I wonder if people in the thirteenth century walked around with placards shouting for action on climate change?
      There is also convincing evidence of the period from 800 to 1300 as being substantially and continually dry.
      Evidence shows that droughts are not more severe now than they have been in the past. The chart shows data from Finland, (other charts show similar results) and shows that the natural warm period we're experiencing at the moment is not producing droughts of any more severity than have occurred in the past.

    • 1 year ago
more from Community:

top videos