Plants are complicated
Planting trees, as everyone knows, is a good way to offset climate change. The more greenery on Earth, the better, since vegetation act as carbon sinks, essentially sucking up the excess CO2 and storing it in leaves, stems, and root systems...
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Plants are complicated
Planting trees, as everyone knows, is a good way to offset climate change. The more greenery on Earth, the better, since vegetation act as carbon sinks, essentially sucking up the excess CO2 and storing it in leaves, stems, and root systems.
But a recent paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience
claims we have a long way to go towards understanding the biochemical
processes in which plants interact with the climate. Simply looking at
the carbon cycle involving plants is not enough, say the researchers led by the earth science department at Lund University in Sweden.
They outlined a number of other biochemical feedbacks worth considering
and exploring in greater detail. Take ground level ozone (O3),
for example. It’s produced during fossil fuel combustion and
causes smog, which is toxic to pretty much all life forms, including
plants. Ozone enters through the stomata and effectively destroys a
leaf”s ability to produce chlorophyll. The researchers say that O3
toxicity could reduce the global land-carbon sink by 12 to 24 billion
metric tons by the year 2100, depending on plant sensitivity.
That’s not all. Consider Nitrogen, that essential soil nutrient
that boosts plant growth. Plants generally grow faster under warmer,
higher CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere, but only if they have enough Nitrogen
to keep them going. “The availability of Nitrogen, which is
limited in many ecosystems, plays a critical role in controlling [net
primary productivity,” the researchers write.
Although some models suggest that warming will enhance the amount of Nitrogen available to plants in the soil, generally the end result is still higher CO2
levels. No one has incorporated into models of climate feedbacks the
impacts of nitrous oxides, which are emitted by microbe decomposition
of the soil (and by human activities), despite their extreme potency as
a greenhouse gas.
The impacts of biologically produced versions of volatile organic
compounds and their generation of cooling aerosols has yet to be
incorporated into experiments on how plants change in a warmer planet.
The researchers argue for incorporating more sophisticated models of
all these biochemical processes into global warming scenarios. Just
looking at CO2 as it relates to plants is not enough. An emissions filter
Peat bogs
are an amazing carbon store. Up to a third of all the terrestrial
carbon on Earth is captured by this kind of acidic wetland, a
depository of dead plant material in northern ecosystems that are very
biodiverse.
As the planet warms, a lot of that carbon is being released back into
the atmosphere as methane, one of the more potent forms of greenhouse
gases. The source: the anaerobic degradation of a kind of moss called Sphagnum.
But a new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience finds that rotting Sphagnum can be mitigated by a kind of bacteria called methanotrophs, which oxidize the gas and turn it into carbon dioxide, which is then available for the mosses to consume and grow.
The methanotrophs effectively act as a kind of “emissions
filter,” the authors led by Radboud University Nijmegen in the
Netherlands write. They did a worldwide survey of Sphagnum ecosystems to assess the distribution and activity of methanotrophs.
They found that increases in methane release, as a result of global
temperature rise, could be counteracted by fostering this kind of
Sphagnum -methanotrophs relationship.
The symbiotic exchange plays a role in carbon recycling in these
waterlogged ecosystems. But that they could actually reduce methane
emissions as well is something special. |
|||||||||