Dennis Avery: Response of plant species to CO2 levels

The earth has stopped warming, but the greenhouse gasses continue to accumulate at higher levels in the atmosphere. Is this good or bad for plants?

In fact, it seems certain that the planet will have rising levels of atmospheric CO2 for the foreseeable future. No country has actually produced substantial cuts in its greenhouse emissions, and Asia continues to strongly increase its output of industrial gasses. Nor have any of the “renewable” energy sources been cost-effective enough to survive the coming budget cuts in Europe and the U.S.

Will the extra CO2 affect the biodiversity of the earth? Some have claimed that C3 plants will now out-compete C4 plants, that weeds will outgrow crop plants, and tall forest trees will shade out the understory species. (The C3 and C4 plants have different patterns of photosynthesis.)

However, Craig Idso of the Center for CO2 Science says we shouldn’t expect much change in our plant diversity due to the expected higher CO2 levels. Idso, trained in agronomy and geography, sees no clear threat to the earth’s species richness.

As an example, he notes, C3 plants like wheat have shown a larger growth response to higher CO2 levels than C4 plants. C4 plants like corn, however, appear to gain more in their ability to raise their water use efficiency—perhaps because they seem to make better use of the mycorrhizal fungi around their roots. The two sets of advantages seem to cancel each other out. Nitrogen-fixing plants seemed to have an advantage over non-nitrogen-fixers—but that was in studies inside greenhouses. Outdoors that advantage disappeared.

One study found that weedy mustard was strongly stimulated by more CO2 in the atmosphere—but no more so than most of the crop plants. On the other hand, says Idso, one of the major British weedy bracken plants seemed to get no stimulus at all from higher CO2 levels—which could put this invasive weed at a disadvantage in the higher CO2 future.

In the forests, says Idso, there seems little likelihood that the taller trees will shade out the understory species. Kerstiens reviewed 15 tree studies, and found that the shade-tolerant trees were twice or three times more responsive to added CO2 than the sun-loving tall trees. So, even if far less sunlight got through the CO2-stimulated upper tree canopy, the understory plants would still be vigorous and competitive. On grassland near Basal, Switzerland, elevated CO2 marginally increased the species diversity.

Hodge found that the increased CO2 levels also induced an increase in soil organic matter, and this seemed to stimulate beneficial soil fungi. Van der Heijden demonstrated that increasing the number of soil fungi species increased ecosystem plant diversity substantially.

None of this reassurance about plant diversity in a world with higher CO2 concentrations should come as startling news, says Idso. After all, most of our plant species evolved originally in much higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 —up to ten times as high.

In terms of temperatures, every species still extant has persisted through 10,000 years of the Eemian Warming before our last Ice Age, which was about 5 degrees C warmer than today, according to the University of Copenhagen. Each of our species then lived through the Ice Age itself, with a probable drop of 6–10 degrees C that lasted for 90,000 years! That’s a range of about 11–16 degrees C just in their “recent” experience. Where did we get the idea that these tough, competitive organisms were fragile?

You could say that the plants now are “just getting back to their roots.” The real lesson of this survey of plant responses to changing CO2 concentrations is the resilience of our wild species. Worry about humans in a full blown ice age, not plants happily absorbing CO2.

[Ed note: para 4 example correction made in original and reflected here]

Resources:

1. Craig Idso, “Biodiversity-Summary,” CO Science, http://co science.org/subject/b/summaries/biodiversity.php

2. C3 and C4 plants—biology on line; http://www.biology-online..org/biology-forum/about 459.

3. B. Hodge et al, 1998, “Characterization and microbial utilization of exudate material from the rhizosphere of Lolium perenne grown under CO2 enrichment,” Soil Biology and Chemistry 30:1033–1043

4. G. Kersteins, 1998, “Shade-tolerance as a predictor of responses to elevated CO2 in trees,” Physiologia Plantarum 10: 472–480

5. van der Heijden, et al., 1998, “Different arbuscular maycorrhizal fungal species are potential determinants of plant community structure,” Ecology 79:2082–2091

CGFI

5 responses to “Dennis Avery: Response of plant species to CO2 levels

  1. YOU MAD SCIENTISTS ARE DRIVING EVERY ONE CRAZY! STOP THIS CRAP. THE SUN HAS ALOT TO DO
    WITH THIS CO2… HAS GOD,S SUN THIS IS STILL A SELF HEALING PLANNET THAT WILL SURVIVE ANYTHING
    WE MIGHT THROW AT IT.. GOD DID NOT CREAT A PLANET TO SELF DESTRUCT, HE MADE THIS PLANET
    FOR ALL HIS CREATURES TO ENJOY.. OIL, GAS, TREES. WILL BE HERE FOREVER.. VOLCANOES ARE
    SPEWING MORE CO2 THAN ANY OTHER FACTOR…

  2. “As an example, he notes, C3 plants like corn”

    Corn is a C4 plant.

  3. I have forwarded your comment on to Dennis Avery, which I am sure he will either appreciate or explain why he labeled as he did. If incorrect, he will correct and republish. Thank you for pointing out the potential error. Adam Avery

  4. C3/C4 plant examples corrected February 6

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s