Researchers have discovered that trees are growing in size as a result of carbon dioxide.
It is well known that trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, protecting people from some of the harshest consequences of climate change. A recent study demonstrates the extent to which forests have been storing excess carbon.
According to the research, which was recently published in the journal Nature Communications, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have boosted the biomass, or wood volume, of American forests.
The research discovered that increasing carbon levels consistently caused an increase in wood volume in 10 distinct temperate forest groups throughout the country, despite the fact that other factors like climate and pests may somewhat influence a tree’s volume. This indicates that trees’ rapid growth is helping to protect the Earth’s ecosystem from the effects of global warming.
“Forests are taking carbon out of the atmosphere at a rate of about 13% of our gross emissions,” said Brent Sohngen, co-author of the study and professor of environmental and resource economics at The Ohio State University. “While we’re putting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we’re actually taking much of it out just by letting our forests grow.”
This is known as carbon fertilization: An influx of carbon dioxide increases a plant’s rate of photosynthesis, which combines energy from the sun, water, and nutrients from the ground and air to produce fuel for life and spurs plant growth.
“It’s well known that when you put a ton of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it doesn’t stay up there forever,” Sohngen said. “A massive amount of it falls into the oceans, while the rest of it is taken up by trees and wetlands and those kinds of areas.”
Over the last two decades, forests in the United States have sequestered about 700-800 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, which, according to the study, accounts for roughly 10% to 11% of the country’s total carbon dioxide emissions. While exposure to high levels of carbon dioxide can have ill effects on natural systems and infrastructure, trees have no issue gluttoning themselves on Earth’s extra supply of greenhouse gas.
To put it in perspective, if you imagine a tree as just a huge cylinder, the added volume the study finds essentially amounts to an extra tree ring, Sohngen said. Although such growth may not be noticeable to the average person, compared to the trees of 30 years ago, modern vegetation is about 20% to 30% bigger than it used to be. If applied to the Coast Redwood forests – home to some of the largest trees in the world – even a modest percentage increase means a lot of additional carbon storage in forests. Researchers also found that even older large trees continue adding biomass as they age due to elevated carbon dioxide levels.
Unlike the effects of climate change, which varies over location and in time, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mixes almost evenly, so every place on Earth has nearly the same amount, Sohngen said.
So to test whether the chemical compound was responsible for beefing up our biome, Sohngen’s team used historical data from the U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (USFS-FIA) to compare how the wood volume of certain forest groups has changed over the past few decades. The study estimates that between 1970 and 2015, there was a significant increase in trees’ wood volume, which correlates with a distinct rise in carbon emissions.
Researchers were also able to use this method to test whether there were differences in naturally occurring trees versus trees that were planted. Sohngen thought that planted trees would undergo a bigger fertilization effect, as they have an advantage in that planters often pick the best seeds to plant in only the best locations. On the contrary, he was surprised to find that planted trees respond to carbon dioxide levels in the same way natural ones do.
Overall, Sohngen said this work shows that the wood volume response to carbon dioxide in our ecosystem is even higher than his colleagues predicted with experimental studies.
The results should show policymakers and others the value of trees in mitigating climate change. Sohngen said that carbon fertilization could one day make tree-growing efforts more efficient. For instance, if it costs $50 to plant one acre of trees today, with the help of carbon fertilization, that number could easily be decreased to $40. As climate change costs the United States about $2 trillion each year, that decrease could help drive down the cost of mitigating climate change, Sohngen said.
“Carbon fertilization certainly makes it cheaper to plant trees, avoid deforestation, or do other activities related to trying to enhance the carbon sink in forests,” Sohngen said. “We should be planting more trees and preserving older ones because at the end of the day they’re probably our best bet for mitigating climate change.”
Reference: “The effect of carbon fertilization on naturally regenerated and planted US forests” by Eric C. Davis, Brent Sohngen, and David J. Lewis, 19 September 2022, Nature Communications.
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Why the choice of a lede photo’ showing Earth being consumed by fire when the thrust of the article is what should be considered good news, that trees are growing faster?
NASA has also documented the expansion of forest boundaries as a result of CO2 fertilization.
Global warming has been happening for millions of years long before humans arrived on this planet, what happened to the ice age it didn’t just happen, in earth’s anti clock wise trip around the sun anti draws you in clock wise throws you out, we have and our moving closer to the sun, volcanic eruptions and hot springs and geysers etc have been throwing millions of cubic meters of toxic waste into the atmosphere long before we got here and will still be in long after we have gone, eventually earth will either burn up or crash into the sun
Nice way to sneak in a total BS statement,,, couched in a good story about how trees positively affect carbon dioxide levels,, they put in a completely false lie statement of “climate change costs the United States about $2 trillion each year”.. that fairy tale comes from a statement made by scientist that by the end of this century climate change could cause the US up to 2 trillion dollars per year,,,https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/climate-change-could-cost-us-2-trillion-each-year-by-2100-omb.html
Well that’s good then right? I mean, the current level of CO2 is 420ppm. This has been as high as 4,000ppm in the past and if it gets below 200ppm, plants start to die. All this climate alarmism is nothing but a scam to demonise carbon and make more money from oil and gas.
Well I noticed a couple of years ago that my woodland trees seemed to be shooting up much faster than they had been – some of them are pretty young, but those that have always been there are much taller than they were, IOW they are not growing fatter so much as just growing tall, which is why I noticed the difference. I wonder what tree people who know what used to be normal could say about this?
“Impacted” is a poor word for “growing bigger.”
Shame on you.
Yes. At the very least they should have said “positively impacted.”