4 ms·

Even with some more efficient scheme the problem is scalability. Deploying enough of this altered plant mass to meaningfully reduce CO2 is a real challenge. Th

by Gatsky 7y ago

Even with some more efficient scheme the problem is scalability. Deploying enough of this altered plant mass to meaningfully reduce CO2 is a real challenge. There is also likely to be huge opposition to injecting GMO plants into the biosphere. I make no judgement on this, just highlighting the issue.

candiodari 7y ago
The main limit on plant growth is exactly that: a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, shortage. Will this actually make a difference with the plants starved of CO2, as opposed to a CO2-enriched atmosphere in the lab ? (obviously I mean from the perspective of a plant that wants to grow faster, what matters from a global perspective can and probably will be different) e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/25/contrary-to-what-you-hear-global-warming-has-been-good-to-africa/#2fc5305627f6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/25/contrary...
- 5efh456 7y ago
  If the main limit is CO2, why does adding fertilizer (nitrogen) to a field suddenly increases the yield 3 times?
  - candiodari 7y ago
    Because plants have chosen to specialize into nitrogen-eating and non-nitrogen eating. So in nature there isn't a problem because these plants mix. Grass puts Nitrogen into the soil. There are other plants, but grass is the most well-known. Things like corn or grain take nitrogen out, and use it. In nature these plants grow centimeters apart, so there is no problem. There's a nitrogen cycle. However if you want much denser grain, you can only have grain. So now we've got agriculture, and it requires density. Large plots of land where you've got nothing but grain. Nitrogen goes out, doesn't come back in. Grain grows for 2-3 years, then refuses. It dies, because it cannot use the nitrogen from the atmosphere. It can only get it from the soil. So we found a solution a very long time ago (it's in the bible, surprisingly, although we have figured out slight improvements since then). Do agriculture in a 7 year cycle: leave blank, grain, grass + animals, grain, grass, grain, grass + animals. There are many cycles used in various places, but they're all quite similar. Fertilizer shortcuts the process: so why does it increase the yield 3 times ? Because you can cut out the grass years and the blank years. Not because the plants grow faster, because you can grow 3x as many of them.
    - 5efh456 7y ago
      > Not because the plants grow faster, because you can grow 3x as many of them. This is against current consensus. The consensus is that plants do grow faster when you put fertilizer in the soil and the yield increase is because of that, not because of the "grass years". There are plenty of studies on this, one example: > Crop yields were increased by 19–41% (rice) and 61–76% (rapeseed) during the two years of rice-rapeseed rotation under NPK fertilization compared to PK fertilization across the study sites. Yield responses to fertilization were ranked NPK > NP > NK > PK, illustrating that N deficiency was the most limiting condition in a rice-rapeseed rotation, followed by P and K deficiencies. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01412-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01412-0 Anyway, you are making my point. Notice how you say that crop rotation, soil quality are extremely important. So much for CO2.
      - samatman 7y ago
        Bottlenecks are only exclusive when the processes run serially. All of water, CO2, and nitrogen (not an exclusive list) can stunt growth, and increasing the levels of any one of them can accelerate it. Your own link points to this, referring as it does to the "most limiting condition", and the fact that addressing P and K deficiencies also increases yield, but not as much as also addressing deficiencies in N.
        5efh456 7y ago
        True, but I'm willing to bet that N deficiency is pretty wild spread world-wide, including in natural soil. Probably the second dominant stunt factor on plants (after water), and way before CO2.
        samatman 7y ago
        Yes and no. Nitrogen deficiency is the factor that would promote the most growth, but at the same time, it's fair to think of all plants as constantly CO2 starved. We would be pretty miserable at 800ppm CO2, but plants would love it.
ema 7y ago
Wouldn't a plant that is able to grow much faster easily out-compete a lot of other plants?
- ben_w 7y ago
  Depends what else is different about the plant. They might be very susceptible to disease, or exceptionally tempting for insects to eat, or consume nitrate fertiliser really quickly, or need carefully controlled temperature/water supply/soil pH.

by Gatsky 7y ago

candiodari 7y ago

The main limit on plant growth is exactly that: a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, shortage. Will this actually make a difference with the plants starved of CO2, as opposed to a CO2-enriched atmosphere in the lab ? (obviously I mean from the perspective of a plant that wants to grow faster, what matters from a global perspective can and probably will be different) e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/25/contrary-to-what-you-hear-global-warming-has-been-good-to-africa/#2fc5305627f6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/25/contrary...

5efh456 7y ago
If the main limit is CO2, why does adding fertilizer (nitrogen) to a field suddenly increases the yield 3 times?
- candiodari 7y ago
  Because plants have chosen to specialize into nitrogen-eating and non-nitrogen eating. So in nature there isn't a problem because these plants mix. Grass puts Nitrogen into the soil. There are other plants, but grass is the most well-known. Things like corn or grain take nitrogen out, and use it. In nature these plants grow centimeters apart, so there is no problem. There's a nitrogen cycle. However if you want much denser grain, you can only have grain. So now we've got agriculture, and it requires density. Large plots of land where you've got nothing but grain. Nitrogen goes out, doesn't come back in. Grain grows for 2-3 years, then refuses. It dies, because it cannot use the nitrogen from the atmosphere. It can only get it from the soil. So we found a solution a very long time ago (it's in the bible, surprisingly, although we have figured out slight improvements since then). Do agriculture in a 7 year cycle: leave blank, grain, grass + animals, grain, grass, grain, grass + animals. There are many cycles used in various places, but they're all quite similar. Fertilizer shortcuts the process: so why does it increase the yield 3 times ? Because you can cut out the grass years and the blank years. Not because the plants grow faster, because you can grow 3x as many of them.
  - 5efh456 7y ago
    > Not because the plants grow faster, because you can grow 3x as many of them. This is against current consensus. The consensus is that plants do grow faster when you put fertilizer in the soil and the yield increase is because of that, not because of the "grass years". There are plenty of studies on this, one example: > Crop yields were increased by 19–41% (rice) and 61–76% (rapeseed) during the two years of rice-rapeseed rotation under NPK fertilization compared to PK fertilization across the study sites. Yield responses to fertilization were ranked NPK > NP > NK > PK, illustrating that N deficiency was the most limiting condition in a rice-rapeseed rotation, followed by P and K deficiencies. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01412-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01412-0 Anyway, you are making my point. Notice how you say that crop rotation, soil quality are extremely important. So much for CO2.
    - samatman 7y ago
      Bottlenecks are only exclusive when the processes run serially. All of water, CO2, and nitrogen (not an exclusive list) can stunt growth, and increasing the levels of any one of them can accelerate it. Your own link points to this, referring as it does to the "most limiting condition", and the fact that addressing P and K deficiencies also increases yield, but not as much as also addressing deficiencies in N.
      - 5efh456 7y ago
        True, but I'm willing to bet that N deficiency is pretty wild spread world-wide, including in natural soil. Probably the second dominant stunt factor on plants (after water), and way before CO2.
        samatman 7y ago
        Yes and no. Nitrogen deficiency is the factor that would promote the most growth, but at the same time, it's fair to think of all plants as constantly CO2 starved. We would be pretty miserable at 800ppm CO2, but plants would love it.

ema 7y ago

Wouldn't a plant that is able to grow much faster easily out-compete a lot of other plants?

ben_w 7y ago
Depends what else is different about the plant. They might be very susceptible to disease, or exceptionally tempting for insects to eat, or consume nitrate fertiliser really quickly, or need carefully controlled temperature/water supply/soil pH.