7 ms·

We’ve known about this effect for awhile. Tree growth has increased on volume but decreased in density since the industrial revolution[0]. A small bump in pla

by Nbox9 5y ago

We’ve known about this effect for awhile. Tree growth has increased on volume but decreased in density since the industrial revolution[0]. A small bump in plant growth can not be seen as anything but the smallest of a silver lining. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112718310600 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811271...

kibwen 5y ago
Saving people a click for the abstract: "Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870 due to a rise in temperature, extended growing seasons, and other components of climate change. Based on wood samples from the oldest existing experimental plots in Central Europe, we show that the dominant tree species Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), and sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Mattuschka) Liebl.) exhibit a significant decrease in wood density since more than 100 years. While stand and trees grow faster with respect to wood volume, we can show that wood density decreased by 8–12% since 1900. These results object a naïve direct transformation of volume growth trends into an accelerated biomass production. Since 1900, stand biomass increment increased 9–24 percentage points less compared to volume increment (29–100% increase reduces to 20–76%). For a given stem diameter and annual ring width, tree stability against windthrow, wood strength, energy content and C sequestration are even reduced under recent conditions. The generally decreased late wood density, partly going along with an increased early wood fraction, suggests the observed extension of the growing season and fertilization effect of dry deposition as the main causes. Our results indicate that current increased wood volume growth rates must not be straightforwardly converted into sequestrated C and biomass harvest potentials assuming historic values for wood density. This should be taken into account in monitoring, modeling, and utilization of carbon and biomass in forests under global change."
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Hmm, that doesn't shout "plants absorb 30% more CO2 than we thought" as discussed in this thread.
  - unishark 5y ago
    I read that abstract twice and still can't parse it, but the 30% number comes from the noaa.gov website quote: "A new study published in the April 6 edition of the journal Nature concludes that as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have increased since the start of the 20th century, plants around the world are utilizing 30 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2), spurring plant growth." ...by the way perhaps not more than we thought (dunno?), but more than the 19th century.
  - occamrazor 5y ago
    > 29–100% increase [in volume]reduces to 20–76% [increase in mass]. 30% is a decent point estimate for 20-76%.
seattle_spring 5y ago
> A small bump in plant growth can not be seen as anything but the smallest of a silver lining. It could also be seen as a bad thing. Forest fire season in the PNW is a lot worse in years with a wetter spring followed by a dry summer. This is because the extra moisture encourages thicker brush growth, which then dries up and serves as tinder and fuel for the fires later in the season. I would think extra plant growth in dry areas combined with any sort of warming trend, would end up acting similarly.
- occamrazor 5y ago
  The article is mostly discussing trees, not bushes.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Is there some reason one should believe that a mechanism that increases tree growth wouldn't also increase underbrush growth? Also, the article itself doesn't mention trees even a single time. Only the study it references does.
colechristensen 5y ago
A 30% bump in plant carbon sinking isn't a small bump, it's a major negative feedback control on atmospheric carbon. Some people seem to have the attitude that if you aren't saying something negative about an environmental topic, you shouldn't be saying anything.
- edrxty 5y ago
  It's more that it's an unspoken thing. Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads. The underlying systems are obviously complex but the end result is simple and society is currently having a hard time processing things that aren't simple.
  - coder-3 5y ago
    The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. In my opinion, just saying that 'this is the effect that we found, the current consensus is that the effect is minor but more research is needed' is a more honest and a more effective way of getting "the masses" on the side of truth.
    - morpheos137 5y ago
      30% increase in carbon consumption by plants is not minor if true.
      - Filligree 5y ago
        It could be. How large is that carbon consumption in the first place?
        morpheos137 5y ago
        My understanding is that on earth the two main carbon sinks are biomass and the oceans. I believe these sinks make up almost 100% of natural carbon sequestration. So it could be a big amount. I'd check the carbon cycle wiki article.
kuhewa 5y ago
It can also have some negative consequences for imperilled ecosystems. African savannahs are becoming more shrubby for example, which will favour some species at the expense of others.

by Nbox9 5y ago

kibwen 5y ago

Saving people a click for the abstract: "Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870 due to a rise in temperature, extended growing seasons, and other components of climate change. Based on wood samples from the oldest existing experimental plots in Central Europe, we show that the dominant tree species Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), and sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Mattuschka) Liebl.) exhibit a significant decrease in wood density since more than 100 years. While stand and trees grow faster with respect to wood volume, we can show that wood density decreased by 8–12% since 1900. These results object a naïve direct transformation of volume growth trends into an accelerated biomass production. Since 1900, stand biomass increment increased 9–24 percentage points less compared to volume increment (29–100% increase reduces to 20–76%). For a given stem diameter and annual ring width, tree stability against windthrow, wood strength, energy content and C sequestration are even reduced under recent conditions. The generally decreased late wood density, partly going along with an increased early wood fraction, suggests the observed extension of the growing season and fertilization effect of dry deposition as the main causes. Our results indicate that current increased wood volume growth rates must not be straightforwardly converted into sequestrated C and biomass harvest potentials assuming historic values for wood density. This should be taken into account in monitoring, modeling, and utilization of carbon and biomass in forests under global change."

dr_dshiv 5y ago
Hmm, that doesn't shout "plants absorb 30% more CO2 than we thought" as discussed in this thread.
- unishark 5y ago
  I read that abstract twice and still can't parse it, but the 30% number comes from the noaa.gov website quote: "A new study published in the April 6 edition of the journal Nature concludes that as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have increased since the start of the 20th century, plants around the world are utilizing 30 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2), spurring plant growth." ...by the way perhaps not more than we thought (dunno?), but more than the 19th century.
- occamrazor 5y ago
  > 29–100% increase [in volume]reduces to 20–76% [increase in mass]. 30% is a decent point estimate for 20-76%.

seattle_spring 5y ago

> A small bump in plant growth can not be seen as anything but the smallest of a silver lining. It could also be seen as a bad thing. Forest fire season in the PNW is a lot worse in years with a wetter spring followed by a dry summer. This is because the extra moisture encourages thicker brush growth, which then dries up and serves as tinder and fuel for the fires later in the season. I would think extra plant growth in dry areas combined with any sort of warming trend, would end up acting similarly.

occamrazor 5y ago
The article is mostly discussing trees, not bushes.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Is there some reason one should believe that a mechanism that increases tree growth wouldn't also increase underbrush growth? Also, the article itself doesn't mention trees even a single time. Only the study it references does.

colechristensen 5y ago

A 30% bump in plant carbon sinking isn't a small bump, it's a major negative feedback control on atmospheric carbon. Some people seem to have the attitude that if you aren't saying something negative about an environmental topic, you shouldn't be saying anything.

edrxty 5y ago
It's more that it's an unspoken thing. Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads. The underlying systems are obviously complex but the end result is simple and society is currently having a hard time processing things that aren't simple.
- coder-3 5y ago
  The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. In my opinion, just saying that 'this is the effect that we found, the current consensus is that the effect is minor but more research is needed' is a more honest and a more effective way of getting "the masses" on the side of truth.
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    30% increase in carbon consumption by plants is not minor if true.
    - Filligree 5y ago
      It could be. How large is that carbon consumption in the first place?
      - morpheos137 5y ago
        My understanding is that on earth the two main carbon sinks are biomass and the oceans. I believe these sinks make up almost 100% of natural carbon sequestration. So it could be a big amount. I'd check the carbon cycle wiki article.

kuhewa 5y ago

It can also have some negative consequences for imperilled ecosystems. African savannahs are becoming more shrubby for example, which will favour some species at the expense of others.