ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Is More CO2 Better For Plants Or Not?

Updated on February 2, 2017
Picture about CO2 benefiting plants, compiled by Robert G. Kernodle from public sources
Picture about CO2 benefiting plants, compiled by Robert G. Kernodle from public sources

Nutrient Or Nemesis?

A particularly troubling claim about human-caused climate change is that more CO2 in Earth's atmosphere will reduce the nutrient content of plants, in some cases, even reducing plant growth and diminishing overall plant health. This claim clearly defies reasoning in horticultural practices, where growers routinely infuse greenhouses or other crop areas with considerably-higher-than-ambient levels of CO2, ... seemingly to good effect, in terms of increasing plant sizes and increasing crop yields.

Such a blatant conflict of perceptions has annoyed me to the point of trying to resolve things once and for all, at least, in my own thinking. So, toward this end, I have done some homework that I hope provides additional clarity to an issue that just won't go away.

Some readers might have been through this all before. Some might never have considered the issue. Some might benefit from a timely re-hashing of it.

Those Who Say CO2 Is Bad

Picture symbolizing CO2 as a demon, compiled by Robert G. Kernodle from public sources
Picture symbolizing CO2 as a demon, compiled by Robert G. Kernodle from public sources

Proponents of CO2-induced climate change generally declare that increasing atmospheric CO2 poses a threat to plants. Who is saying this? What is the evidence? Where is this evidence written? Why should anybody believe it?

As an example, consider a 2007 article on the NEW SCIENTIST website ... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/ [downloaded 01/30/2017]. Here David Chandler and Michael Le Page use a demeaning title, Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production to frame their presentation of information that contradicts the title's main suggestion -- that CO2 benefits to plants is a "myth". After clearly discussing a well-known CO2-fertilizing effect on plants, they proceed to use language that raises doubt, without effectively supporting the premise of their title. These authors further confuse the issue by diverting focus to factors such as temperature and water, which limit the CO2-fertilizing effect, a fact that is NOT disputed by those who understand the effect.

Consequently, the only myth that these authors reveal is that a demeaning title stands up successfully to detailed scrutiny of the information that it claims to represent -- it does NOT. Rather, a demeaning title without substance to support it merely provides an official reference for people who look no further than a title for the truth. This article, then, in my judgment, is a sham, an avoidance of, and misrepresentation of the most relevant real-world facts.

Feng et al. Paper

Now consider a frequently cited 2015 study by Zhaoshong Feng and others, titled, Constraints to nitrogen acquisition of terrestrial plants under elevated CO2, GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY (2015), 21, 3152–3168 ... http://cedarcreek.umn.edu/biblio/fulltext/Feng_et_al-2015-Global_Change_Biology.pdf [downloaded 01/30/2017]:

  • On page 3161 of this study, the authors state: The findings that plants in eCO2 [elevated CO2] often take up more N and that large growth stimulation by eCO2 is accompanied by enhanced N acquisition have been emphasized in previous studies (Norby et al., 1999; Luo et al., 2006; Finzi et al., 2007; Iversen, 2010) and will not be discussed further here. Instead, we will focus on the finding of a negative effect of eCO2 on plant Nac [nitrogen acquisition] and N concentration at neutral or modest shifts in productivity.

This is just one example of how the authors of this particular study CHOOSE to focus on negative effects.

As I attempted to navigate the tedious, torturous, obscure academic writing style of the study, I never got a sense that the authors were making any final conclusive remarks condemning CO2 fertilization. Yet, popular science publications misrepresent this study or enlist individual experts who themselves appear to misrepresent the study in their personal quotations of it.

Feelings Overshadow Facts

An article at the website of SCIENCE DAILY, features the headline, Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants' ability to absorb nutrients ... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150612104016.htm [downloaded 01/30/2017]. This article, quotes researcher, Johan Uddling (one of the authors of the Feng and others study) as saying that the study's findings are "unequivocal", which I find astonishing. Why am my astonished? -- The original article had no such tone of "unequivocal" about it! In fact the original article cited other studies that demonstrated the benefits of enhanced CO2 for plants. The original study continually tempered its statements in regard to such studies, never arriving at an "unequivocal" conclusion that in any way excluded these other studies from consideration.

I, therefore, wonder how one of the authors of the original study could make such a bold claim. I can only harbor suspicions that this particular author has a vested interest in confirming his own non-scientific conclusion about CO2, which ignores some of the very research he used in the study that he helped perform and falsely represent after the fact. I would be curious to know whether the other authors of the study agreed with Uddling.

Judging from a later, 2016 article by one of the other study authors, Tobias Rutting, Nitrogen mineralization, not N2 fixation alleviates progressive nitrogen limitation – Comment on “Processes regulating progressive nitrogen limitation under elevated carbon dioxide: a meta-analysis” by Liang et al., I would say that Uddling was NOT speaking for the other authors. At the time of this writing, Rutting's article is listed as "under review" for the journal, BIOGEOSCIENCES, the full text of which is located at ... http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-456/bg-2016-456.pdf [downloaded 01/30/2017].

Notice one of Rutting's concluding statements in that article:

  • In conclusion, several processes can contribute to prevent the development of a PNL [progressive nitrogen limitation] under elevated CO2.

Those Who Say CO2 Is Good

Picture by Public Policy Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Picture by Public Policy Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

People who grow plants for a living or deal with people who grow plants for a living seem to be most qualified in rendering judgments as to the practical benefits of exposing plants to elevated levels of CO2. For example, consider information from The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), the government ministry responsible for food, agriculture and rural sectors of the Canadian province of Ontario. According to this organization's website at ... http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm ...

  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis.
  • CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigor, as evidenced by such effects as earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size.
  • Growers, therefore, should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

A more exhaustive description of CO2 benefits is available from the Science and Public Policy Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, THE MANY BENEFITS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ENRICHMENT,
http://www.co2science.org/education/book/2011/55BenefitsofCO2Pamphlet.pdf [downloaded 01/31/2017]

After reading such sources as these, which note at least fifty-five positive effects, a person starts to wonder why so many people revere the voices of academicians and activists above the voices of farmers and other professional plant growers. I can only say that I respect the voices of people who have their hands in the dirt and actually touch the plants day in and day out.

Seeing Is Believing

CONCLUSION

In my own exploration of CO2 plant fertilization, I have seen a continuing, disturbing pattern where intelligent people avoid reality, in order to nurture unfounded fears or to bolster preferred ideals. These intelligent people try extra hard to find the negative effects of CO2, going to extremes of mental gymnastics and verbal acrobatics to avoid considering the positive effects. I am forced, therefore, to distance myself from the deficiencies of such reasoning.


As a result, I arrive at the conclusion that more CO2 is good for plants. Any possible negative effects can be mediated by intelligent farming practices, intelligent land management, and intelligent plant breeding, ... all of which seem to be happening anyway, at least among many of those people engaged in the hands-on production of or management of plants.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)