9 ms·

‘Earthworm Dilemma’ Has Climate Scientists Racing to Keep Up

88 points by malshe 7y ago

british_india 7y ago
Paywalled--I.e. Does not exist
tony_cannistra 7y ago
What's perhaps more alarming in the original paper [0] is that earthworms were shown to increase nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions even more than they increased CO2 emissions from soil (42% and 33%, respectively). In terms relevant to the greenhouse effect, N2O is 298 times more potent than CO2 in the atmosphere [1]. I wonder about how increasing the entire boreal forest's emissions of N2O by 42% would affect the current projections. Seems...bad. There's perhaps a silver lining here though: earthworms "unlock" stored nutrients in soils, making them easier for plants to access. This might spur growth, thereby storing atmospheric carbon in the process. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692 [1]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
- whatshisface 7y ago
  According to this paper, about 10,000 times as much CO2 is emitted by the forest floor than N2O. So, even though N2O is more potent, the CO2 is a bigger deal (and changes in it are therefore a bigger deal as well). https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/90/4/541/3064404 https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/90/4/541/3064404 See table 4. Note that NO2 efflux is measured in mg and CO2 is measured in g.
  - tony_cannistra 7y ago
    Hey, thanks for that reference. You're right, but the 300x potency of N2O vs CO2 and the sheer unknowns lurking in our understanding of the "earthworm problem" still make this worth investigation, in my opinion. Additionally, at the risk of being pedantic and because I'm a stuck-up academic, I want to point out that your reference is studying a temperate forest. This is relevant not only because species composition and climatic regimes present in temperate forests (decidious trees, high species diversity, high nutrient availabilty, moderate climates) differ markedly from those of boreal forests (coniferous trees, low species diversity, low nutrient availability, extreme climatic seasonality). There's good reason to believe that this difference has a corresponding shift in the GHG emission regimes of the respective forestlands, which you can see here [0]. Additionally, boreal forests are the earth's largest terrestrial ecosystem [1], which makes this potential difference quite relevant. Your point is well taken, though -- it's important to triage effort in facing a complicated global challenge. [0]: https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/X08-209#.XOLSAFNKjOY https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/X08-209#.XOLSAF... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga
- seren 7y ago
  It depends on how big is the base rate of emission of N2O for boreal forest, if it was negligible before an increase of 42% is certainly not good but might not be catastrophic.
macspoofing 7y ago
Can we please start investing in nuclear power again. Pretty please? We've already lost 50 years due to anti-nuclear policies that effectively killed nuclear power in every developed nation not named 'France'. Wind/Solar necessarily implies doubling-down on natural gas as this is the standard (and only) way to get around the intermittency issue of those renewables. It's no surprise that natural gas companies now lobby for Wind and Solar deployments, and Germany signs multi-decade deals to import Russian gas as they increase their Solar and Wind footprint. So nuclear, apart from being capable of cutting our CO2 emissions to 0 for power generation, also requires two orders of magnitude less land-use than Solar and Wind deployments. This does nothing for CO2 emissions, but I'm sure wild-life will appreciate less encroachment. What will it take for environmentalists, and progressives (who push the anti-nuclear Green New Deal) to support nuclear power?
- jedberg 7y ago
  > What will it take for environmentalists, and progressives (who push the anti-nuclear Green New Deal) to support nuclear power? Better marketing. Back in the 90s, the GOP hired a PR firm, who came up with the idea of renaming the estate tax to the death tax. In doing so, they managed to get even hardcore liberals on board with "eliminating the death tax", even though those same people were very much for increasing the estate tax. Nuclear needs a similar PR boost. Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board. The new marketing would have to tout both the newer "meltdown free" reactors as well as put a new spin on the Yucca mountain storage facility.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board. You think so? Because I would think they would see through the attempt if tried. And it would simply lead to conspiracy theories of big-nuclear trying to put lipstick on a pig - in the same way that 'clean coal' branding didn't really get any environmentalists/progressives on board for coal power.
    - jedberg 7y ago
781 7y ago
> No mechanism exists to eradicate earthworms from the boreal forest Surely there must be an worm-eater somewhere.
- mikestew 7y ago
  Due to pollution and habitat encroachment, early birds are becoming endangered in many parts of the world.
- marapuru 7y ago
  No flame intended here, but have to state this. Worm-eater. That's such a typical solution. The cause of this migration should be given a solution, not the effects or result of the migration.
- empath75 7y ago
  https://youtu.be/P9yruQM1ggc https://youtu.be/P9yruQM1ggc
- strainer 7y ago
  The UK has been alarmed by the "New Zealand flatworm" threatening its earthworm population - some places have lost all of their worms, though it seems to be under control. On the other hand at a push, it may be possible to deliberately seed forests with them. I think this article is quite hyperbolic though. It talks about a researchers "horror" at theoretical possibilities, but the latest literature review cited is 6 years old and it did not resolve any definite effect. >Our results suggest that although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692
rckclmbr 7y ago
This is where it gets hard to fight climate change. As awareness increases, so does funding for "climate change". Now everyone environmental scientist with an issue will link that issue with climate change, with the hopes of drawing press, awareness, and funding. It may or may not actually be an issue, but I think we need to focus on the top causes of climate change first.
- seren 7y ago
  I am not sure more science can be an issue, it is still a ridiculous small amount of money compared to defence, debt servicing, etc. Who knows, someone might find a negative feedback loop for climate change that we could leverage, even in something as improbable as mycology ? (Likely increasing defence budget is also another way to mitigate climate change if we don't do it in a more civilized way...)
  - achenatx 7y ago
    the best negative feedback loop is a depression. Kill the global economy for 20 years and CO2 production will crash. Ironically trumps tariffs are likely to do more to slow climate change than any other policies.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      I wonder if this is true or if we will just use cheaper, dirtier technology to get by?
      - webmaven 7y ago
        That depends to an extent on how deep the depression is. As transportation gets more expensive, after a certain point, solar panels and wind turbines are cheaper to ship around than huge amounts of coal and oil. However, at a certain point after that, efficient solar panels and wind turbines (not to mention batteries and motors) may become too hard to manufacture due to unavailability of critical materials and components. If anyone is looking for a big meaty research problem that may influence just how far our technological society might fall, either work on non-rare replacements for rare-earth elements (semiconductor dopants, magnets, etc.) or on ways to shorten the supply lines (eg. economically/sustainably extract them from ordinary dirt or seawater, perhaps with synbio).
someonenice 7y ago
And in other parts of the world, earth worms are dying in large.. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/after-the-deluge-keralas-next-crisis-dying-earthworms/articleshow/65826053.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/after-the-deluge-k... Earthworms more important than panda if you want to save the earth... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthworms-are-more-important-than-pandas-if-you-want-to-save-the-planet-a7655326.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthworms-are-mo...
- JoshTko 7y ago
  Earth will be fine, people will not. Climate change sounds innocuous as daylight savings and needs to be rebranded in order to resonate with more people.
  - te_chris 7y ago
    The Guardian has decided to do just that https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-.... Now it's 'Global Heating' and 'Climate Crisis'
    - faissaloo 7y ago
      How about 'The Extinction'
      - giggles_giggles 7y ago
        Speaking as a converted climate skeptic, the person who finally convinced me that this is real and serious overdid it and convinced me that we'll be seeing massive famines, extinctions, and widespread death as biomes shift around worldwide in the next 30 years or so, within our lifetimes. Since the only way to stop this would be to actually reverse damage already done, requiring worldwide effort never seen in history to perform actions that may be scientifically impossible, I think it's safe to say that we're royally fucked. So why should I even care about this topic, or the planet, if we're all gonna starve to death within our lifetimes or our childrens'? I'm going to just live my life for pleasure. Can't stop it now anyway. It's THE EXTINCTION. Time to party I guess.
misterzip 7y ago
Not sure I have too much to add to the discussion but I do have a question – what do the people who know the most about climate change think we (consumers) should do? There seem to be few coherent lobbying efforts; the people best known for accurate science (IPCC) have no information that I can find about what an average human should be doing to help fight the good fight; it all just feels so impossible. Does anyone here have any links or suggestions? I've done a small amount of work on "raising awareness" (https://twitter.com/ipccbot https://twitter.com/ipccbot) but it seems like everyone either knows and cares or knows and doesn't care. A lot of the climate news feels like climate news porn – so the earthworms are freaking scientists out, what does that mean for me? Can I help the scientists? Are there places I can donate? Or specific calls to action I can follow to help advocate for saner climate policy? What is that policy?
- morley 7y ago
  The most common refrain I've heard is to reduce meat consumption, and to shift from high-carbon-output meats to lower-output ones. I think the rough order, from highest to lowest, is: - Beef - Pork - Seafood - Chicken - Non-meat diet
  - misterzip 7y ago
    I'm willing to believe you (and I am already doing this!) but can you show me where any climate scientists advocate for consumers to take this kind of action? And model out how supply of these high-carbon-output food sources will be affected by this depending on how many consumers take action? If you don't have the time or interest that's totally fine, but I'm trying to make the point that it's really confusing for me as a consumer to understand what to do about climate change. I really wish the IPCC or other climate groups would get together with a list of actions for regular people, along with the predicted effects of those actions.
    - tom_mellior 7y ago
      This is not from the IPCC but a multidisciplinary commission that presumably included climate scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_diet
RenRav 7y ago
Do the benefits earthworms provide for the soil/plants outweight the negatives?
war1025 7y ago
The world is a dynamic system. You can't wind back the clock on anything. People need to let go of their static worldview and accept that change happens. We are continually poking Pandora's Box. What has been let out cannot be put back in.
- graenxa 7y ago
  I think you're right, the question now is do we learn from how it's changed and how we're changing it? Do we continue to make the planet an ever more unlivable hell-hole because "the world is a dynamic system." Or do we look at what's happening, learn from it, and try to prevent things from getting worse.
  - war1025 7y ago
    Absolutely we should be trying to do better. But we do that by steering towards a future that is acceptable, not by trying to turn back time to somewhere we used to be.
    - graenxa 7y ago
      I apologize for my hostile tone before, I think you and I are on the same page. There does seem to be a lot of hand wringing about the ways thing are changing and little direction on what to do about it.
VBprogrammer 7y ago
I wonder how this interplays with anaerobic decomposition which would produce CH4 (which is many times more potent as a greenhouse gas). I'd expect that the worm activity encourages oxygen consuming bacteria which produce CO2.

88 points by malshe 7y ago

Paywalled--I.e. Does not exist

What's perhaps more alarming in the original paper [0] is that earthworms were shown to increase nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions even more than they increased CO2 emissions from soil (42% and 33%, respectively). In terms relevant to the greenhouse effect, N2O is 298 times more potent than CO2 in the atmosphere [1]. I wonder about how increasing the entire boreal forest's emissions of N2O by 42% would affect the current projections. Seems...bad. There's perhaps a silver lining here though: earthworms "unlock" stored nutrients in soils, making them easier for plants to access. This might spur growth, thereby storing atmospheric carbon in the process. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692 [1]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

whatshisface 7y ago
According to this paper, about 10,000 times as much CO2 is emitted by the forest floor than N2O. So, even though N2O is more potent, the CO2 is a bigger deal (and changes in it are therefore a bigger deal as well). https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/90/4/541/3064404 https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/90/4/541/3064404 See table 4. Note that NO2 efflux is measured in mg and CO2 is measured in g.
- tony_cannistra 7y ago
  Hey, thanks for that reference. You're right, but the 300x potency of N2O vs CO2 and the sheer unknowns lurking in our understanding of the "earthworm problem" still make this worth investigation, in my opinion. Additionally, at the risk of being pedantic and because I'm a stuck-up academic, I want to point out that your reference is studying a temperate forest. This is relevant not only because species composition and climatic regimes present in temperate forests (decidious trees, high species diversity, high nutrient availabilty, moderate climates) differ markedly from those of boreal forests (coniferous trees, low species diversity, low nutrient availability, extreme climatic seasonality). There's good reason to believe that this difference has a corresponding shift in the GHG emission regimes of the respective forestlands, which you can see here [0]. Additionally, boreal forests are the earth's largest terrestrial ecosystem [1], which makes this potential difference quite relevant. Your point is well taken, though -- it's important to triage effort in facing a complicated global challenge. [0]: https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/X08-209#.XOLSAFNKjOY https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/X08-209#.XOLSAF... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga
seren 7y ago
It depends on how big is the base rate of emission of N2O for boreal forest, if it was negligible before an increase of 42% is certainly not good but might not be catastrophic.

macspoofing 7y ago

Can we please start investing in nuclear power again. Pretty please? We've already lost 50 years due to anti-nuclear policies that effectively killed nuclear power in every developed nation not named 'France'. Wind/Solar necessarily implies doubling-down on natural gas as this is the standard (and only) way to get around the intermittency issue of those renewables. It's no surprise that natural gas companies now lobby for Wind and Solar deployments, and Germany signs multi-decade deals to import Russian gas as they increase their Solar and Wind footprint. So nuclear, apart from being capable of cutting our CO2 emissions to 0 for power generation, also requires two orders of magnitude less land-use than Solar and Wind deployments. This does nothing for CO2 emissions, but I'm sure wild-life will appreciate less encroachment. What will it take for environmentalists, and progressives (who push the anti-nuclear Green New Deal) to support nuclear power?

jedberg 7y ago
> What will it take for environmentalists, and progressives (who push the anti-nuclear Green New Deal) to support nuclear power? Better marketing. Back in the 90s, the GOP hired a PR firm, who came up with the idea of renaming the estate tax to the death tax. In doing so, they managed to get even hardcore liberals on board with "eliminating the death tax", even though those same people were very much for increasing the estate tax. Nuclear needs a similar PR boost. Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board. The new marketing would have to tout both the newer "meltdown free" reactors as well as put a new spin on the Yucca mountain storage facility.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Call it something else and get the environmentalists and progressives on board. You think so? Because I would think they would see through the attempt if tried. And it would simply lead to conspiracy theories of big-nuclear trying to put lipstick on a pig - in the same way that 'clean coal' branding didn't really get any environmentalists/progressives on board for coal power.
  - jedberg 7y ago

781 7y ago

> No mechanism exists to eradicate earthworms from the boreal forest Surely there must be an worm-eater somewhere.

mikestew 7y ago
Due to pollution and habitat encroachment, early birds are becoming endangered in many parts of the world.
marapuru 7y ago
No flame intended here, but have to state this. Worm-eater. That's such a typical solution. The cause of this migration should be given a solution, not the effects or result of the migration.
empath75 7y ago
https://youtu.be/P9yruQM1ggc https://youtu.be/P9yruQM1ggc
strainer 7y ago
The UK has been alarmed by the "New Zealand flatworm" threatening its earthworm population - some places have lost all of their worms, though it seems to be under control. On the other hand at a push, it may be possible to deliberately seed forests with them. I think this article is quite hyperbolic though. It talks about a researchers "horror" at theoretical possibilities, but the latest literature review cited is 6 years old and it did not resolve any definite effect. >Our results suggest that although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1692

rckclmbr 7y ago

This is where it gets hard to fight climate change. As awareness increases, so does funding for "climate change". Now everyone environmental scientist with an issue will link that issue with climate change, with the hopes of drawing press, awareness, and funding. It may or may not actually be an issue, but I think we need to focus on the top causes of climate change first.

seren 7y ago
I am not sure more science can be an issue, it is still a ridiculous small amount of money compared to defence, debt servicing, etc. Who knows, someone might find a negative feedback loop for climate change that we could leverage, even in something as improbable as mycology ? (Likely increasing defence budget is also another way to mitigate climate change if we don't do it in a more civilized way...)
- achenatx 7y ago
  the best negative feedback loop is a depression. Kill the global economy for 20 years and CO2 production will crash. Ironically trumps tariffs are likely to do more to slow climate change than any other policies.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    I wonder if this is true or if we will just use cheaper, dirtier technology to get by?
    - webmaven 7y ago
      That depends to an extent on how deep the depression is. As transportation gets more expensive, after a certain point, solar panels and wind turbines are cheaper to ship around than huge amounts of coal and oil. However, at a certain point after that, efficient solar panels and wind turbines (not to mention batteries and motors) may become too hard to manufacture due to unavailability of critical materials and components. If anyone is looking for a big meaty research problem that may influence just how far our technological society might fall, either work on non-rare replacements for rare-earth elements (semiconductor dopants, magnets, etc.) or on ways to shorten the supply lines (eg. economically/sustainably extract them from ordinary dirt or seawater, perhaps with synbio).

someonenice 7y ago

And in other parts of the world, earth worms are dying in large.. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/after-the-deluge-keralas-next-crisis-dying-earthworms/articleshow/65826053.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/after-the-deluge-k... Earthworms more important than panda if you want to save the earth... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthworms-are-more-important-than-pandas-if-you-want-to-save-the-planet-a7655326.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthworms-are-mo...

JoshTko 7y ago
Earth will be fine, people will not. Climate change sounds innocuous as daylight savings and needs to be rebranded in order to resonate with more people.
- te_chris 7y ago
  The Guardian has decided to do just that https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-.... Now it's 'Global Heating' and 'Climate Crisis'
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    How about 'The Extinction'
    - giggles_giggles 7y ago
      Speaking as a converted climate skeptic, the person who finally convinced me that this is real and serious overdid it and convinced me that we'll be seeing massive famines, extinctions, and widespread death as biomes shift around worldwide in the next 30 years or so, within our lifetimes. Since the only way to stop this would be to actually reverse damage already done, requiring worldwide effort never seen in history to perform actions that may be scientifically impossible, I think it's safe to say that we're royally fucked. So why should I even care about this topic, or the planet, if we're all gonna starve to death within our lifetimes or our childrens'? I'm going to just live my life for pleasure. Can't stop it now anyway. It's THE EXTINCTION. Time to party I guess.

misterzip 7y ago

Not sure I have too much to add to the discussion but I do have a question – what do the people who know the most about climate change think we (consumers) should do? There seem to be few coherent lobbying efforts; the people best known for accurate science (IPCC) have no information that I can find about what an average human should be doing to help fight the good fight; it all just feels so impossible. Does anyone here have any links or suggestions? I've done a small amount of work on "raising awareness" (https://twitter.com/ipccbot https://twitter.com/ipccbot) but it seems like everyone either knows and cares or knows and doesn't care. A lot of the climate news feels like climate news porn – so the earthworms are freaking scientists out, what does that mean for me? Can I help the scientists? Are there places I can donate? Or specific calls to action I can follow to help advocate for saner climate policy? What is that policy?

morley 7y ago
The most common refrain I've heard is to reduce meat consumption, and to shift from high-carbon-output meats to lower-output ones. I think the rough order, from highest to lowest, is: - Beef - Pork - Seafood - Chicken - Non-meat diet
- misterzip 7y ago
  I'm willing to believe you (and I am already doing this!) but can you show me where any climate scientists advocate for consumers to take this kind of action? And model out how supply of these high-carbon-output food sources will be affected by this depending on how many consumers take action? If you don't have the time or interest that's totally fine, but I'm trying to make the point that it's really confusing for me as a consumer to understand what to do about climate change. I really wish the IPCC or other climate groups would get together with a list of actions for regular people, along with the predicted effects of those actions.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    This is not from the IPCC but a multidisciplinary commission that presumably included climate scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_diet

RenRav 7y ago

Do the benefits earthworms provide for the soil/plants outweight the negatives?

war1025 7y ago

The world is a dynamic system. You can't wind back the clock on anything. People need to let go of their static worldview and accept that change happens. We are continually poking Pandora's Box. What has been let out cannot be put back in.

graenxa 7y ago
I think you're right, the question now is do we learn from how it's changed and how we're changing it? Do we continue to make the planet an ever more unlivable hell-hole because "the world is a dynamic system." Or do we look at what's happening, learn from it, and try to prevent things from getting worse.
- war1025 7y ago
  Absolutely we should be trying to do better. But we do that by steering towards a future that is acceptable, not by trying to turn back time to somewhere we used to be.
  - graenxa 7y ago
    I apologize for my hostile tone before, I think you and I are on the same page. There does seem to be a lot of hand wringing about the ways thing are changing and little direction on what to do about it.

VBprogrammer 7y ago

I wonder how this interplays with anaerobic decomposition which would produce CH4 (which is many times more potent as a greenhouse gas). I'd expect that the worm activity encourages oxygen consuming bacteria which produce CO2.