6 ms·

A warmer planet, less nutritious plants and fewer grasshoppers?

41 points by dnetesn 3y ago

tfourb 3y ago
Turns out messing with the composition of the atmosphere has some unexpected consequences …
- adamisom 3y ago
  Yep, for example: it'll be better for a lot of agriculture - unexpected indeed
  - it_citizen 3y ago
    If they still have enough water that is. Spain might have some thoughts on that.
chrisco255 3y ago
No, plants are not less nutritious as a result of CO2 fertilization. As CO2 doubles overall plant yield increases and a single digit percentage shift in macro nutrient profile occurs. From [1], Elevated CO2 increased Cu, Fe, and Zn, but lowered Mn concentration in grass leaves. Tree leaf responses were strongly related to N status: CO2 significantly decreased Cu, Fe, Mg, and S at high N, but only Fe at low N. Elevated CO2 decreased Mg and Zn in crop leaves grown with high N, and Mn at low N. Nutrient concentrations in crop roots were not affected by CO2 enrichment, but CO2decreasedCa,K,MgandPintree roots. Crop seeds had lower S under elevated CO2.We also tested the validity of a ‘‘dilution model.’’ CO2 reduced the concentration of plant nutrients 6.6% across nutrients and plant groups, but the reduction is less than expected (18.4%) from carbohydrate accumulation alone. A lot of gnashing of teeth over an at most 7% shift in nutrient profile (and it takes a doubling to observe this) while a significant double digit percentage increase in crop yield is observed, making more food available for consumption. https://ecoss.nau.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Duval-et-al-2012-Plant-Ecology.pdf https://ecoss.nau.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Duval-et-al...
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Why does this matter when food scarcity has never been the problem? Americans throw away a huge portion of the food they buy.
  - alfor 3y ago
    More plant grow more CO2 captured. It’s a natural stabilisation cycle and a positive side effect. But we shouldn’t talk about it because we should be so so afraid all the time of the green apocalypse.
    - croes 3y ago
      This natural stabilisation cycle leads to a different flora and fauna, some species adapt, some don't and go extinct. So life as such isn't in danger but life as we know it, because we could be the one to go extinct. Just look how it seems that fungus adapt to higher temperatures so they now survive in humans too.
      - monero-xmr 3y ago
        Nothing is static in nature. We were in an ice age a blink-of-an-eye ago in geologic terms. Animals migrate. Something may or may not be caused by a warming temperature, but immediately assuming all changes are caused by co2, or that all changes are inherently bad, is an unnatural understanding of natural processes.
        notfish 3y ago
        1. “Climate scientists are claiming that all changes from climate change will be bad!” is quite the strawman. No scientist really believes this, but almost all agree that the average change will be very bad for humans. 2. Climate change does not mean “increasing CO2”. It means changes in global climate as a result of human activity - things like dumping waste in the ocean count too. CO2 isn’t causing the Anthropocene, Humans are. 3. Arguing in poor faith against climate change because the idea of global catastrophes scares you is a poor evolutionary strategy and you should reconsider your outlook.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
> Scientists have also posited that when carbon dioxide is high, plants are less efficient at taking up minerals and other elements because the root molecules that normally pull in these elements are acting at a lower capacity Nutrient absorption is often mediated by fungi and bacteria in the soil, it would be interesting to see a breakdown about how sensitive they are to elevated CO2. If we find that the process is bottlenecked by a certain soil organism, we might be able to find ways to help.
globalreset 3y ago
[flagged]
ravenstine 3y ago
I suppose this means the Carboniferous Period must not have had many insects.
- JadeNB 3y ago
  It did—they were enormous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Carboniferous_insects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Carboniferous_insects
syngrog66 3y ago
My brain parsed that first as "less nutritious grasshoppers." Ew! Speaking of the accelerating impacts of the carbon climate crisis -- esp on ecosystems and the food supply -- I've been building an educational comedy adventure game [SB: see below] (set about 80 years in the future) which makes several assumptions about the food supply as a core premise. Assumptions not unlike those in the films Mad Max or Idiocracy. Namely that several new types of artificially grown/manufactured food are created and promoted. Among them, a fictional slimy, fruity white "slurm" drink and a mystery meat-like goo named "glerm." Both or which smell and taste awful, of course, yet are loaded with healthy nutrients and vitamins. Most importantly, easy to mass produce and distribute, esp in a world with poisoned soils and degraded logistical infrastructure. ---- [SB] - https://synystrongames.itch.io/slartboz https://synystrongames.itch.io/slartboz
Breadmaker 3y ago
Leaf Brix maybe be a concern,if grasshoppers specific preferences. https://joegardener.com/podcast/understanding-brix-how-it-affects-plants-pests/ https://joegardener.com/podcast/understanding-brix-how-it-af...
alfor 3y ago
Also: more food, more plants, less deserts, more carbon captured.
- croes 3y ago
  How? Higher temperatures, less glaciers, more extreme weather, dry lakes and rivers, more deserts. It's a complex system and we don't know how it ends. We could become food too for fungi and insects that spread because of higher temperatures.
  - beerpls 3y ago
    The Earth has many systems which help maintain a balance. It’s happened many times in the past Perhaps whatever is happening now is too extreme for it to do that, but it seems unlikely. The ecosystems of the planet share many deep symbioses I know i’ll be downvoted, and i’m expecting no one will actually address what i’ve said while doing it. There’s no real conservation in this topic anymore.
    - croes 3y ago
      But in the past we weren't 8 billion people who travel around the world. Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.
    - 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 3y ago
      Nice Freudian slip!
    - jgwil2 3y ago
      Nobody is suggesting that the Earth itself is under threat. The biosphere will survive but humans, especially those in poorer regions, stand to suffer greatly, and many consider it a moral imperative to mitigate that suffering. The best way to do that would seem to be avoiding the most rapid and dramatic climatic changes in order to give people and ecosystems time to adapt.
photochemsyn 3y ago
This seems questionable on several grounds. (1) Greenhouse growers often raise CO2 levels to ~1000 ppm to optimize growth (note this only works because all other nutrients are supplied at ideal levels to sustain growth, however). These crops are not known to be nutritionally deficient and I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it if they were. (2) Plants have a relatively stable ratio of nutrient requirements, with CHOPKNS CaFe Mg (mighty good) being an easy-to-remember acronym. We might be moving to a scenario in which CO2 is rarely if ever the limiting nutrient, however. Note also certain plants (C4 metabolism) have built-in CO2 concentration mechanisms, so rising CO2 might help C3 plants compete effectively. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14757584/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14757584/ "Terrestrial plants require nutrients in similar proportions" (2004) It's more probable that there's a bit of a CO2 fertilization effect, so you get a slight increase in carbon fixation while nutrient uptake remains stable, which isn t really a 'decline' as we'd normally think of it. Basically you'd get a bit more cellulose and carbohydrate formation, but each cell still needs its normal amount of N, P, K etc. to sustain protein and DNA metabolism etc. Incidentally, the decline in insect populations mentioned in the article is largely attributable to extensive use of broad-spectrum insecticides, in particular the neonicotinoids, which are organic compounds based on the nicotine molecule with various additions (chlorine, etc.) to make them more persistent and toxic, and which were introduced in the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
Eric_WVGG 3y ago
a while back (too long to recall the sources), I was reading about extinctions and thinking, "well, something or other is going to thrive under these changing conditions." Turns out that the biggest winners of climate change are likely to be spiders and jellyfish. Great time to be an octopod.

41 points by dnetesn 3y ago

tfourb 3y ago

Turns out messing with the composition of the atmosphere has some unexpected consequences …

adamisom 3y ago
Yep, for example: it'll be better for a lot of agriculture - unexpected indeed
- it_citizen 3y ago
  If they still have enough water that is. Spain might have some thoughts on that.

chrisco255 3y ago

No, plants are not less nutritious as a result of CO2 fertilization. As CO2 doubles overall plant yield increases and a single digit percentage shift in macro nutrient profile occurs. From [1], Elevated CO2 increased Cu, Fe, and Zn, but lowered Mn concentration in grass leaves. Tree leaf responses were strongly related to N status: CO2 significantly decreased Cu, Fe, Mg, and S at high N, but only Fe at low N. Elevated CO2 decreased Mg and Zn in crop leaves grown with high N, and Mn at low N. Nutrient concentrations in crop roots were not affected by CO2 enrichment, but CO2decreasedCa,K,MgandPintree roots. Crop seeds had lower S under elevated CO2.We also tested the validity of a ‘‘dilution model.’’ CO2 reduced the concentration of plant nutrients 6.6% across nutrients and plant groups, but the reduction is less than expected (18.4%) from carbohydrate accumulation alone. A lot of gnashing of teeth over an at most 7% shift in nutrient profile (and it takes a doubling to observe this) while a significant double digit percentage increase in crop yield is observed, making more food available for consumption. https://ecoss.nau.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Duval-et-al-2012-Plant-Ecology.pdf https://ecoss.nau.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Duval-et-al...

mrguyorama 3y ago
Why does this matter when food scarcity has never been the problem? Americans throw away a huge portion of the food they buy.
- alfor 3y ago
  More plant grow more CO2 captured. It’s a natural stabilisation cycle and a positive side effect. But we shouldn’t talk about it because we should be so so afraid all the time of the green apocalypse.
  - croes 3y ago
    This natural stabilisation cycle leads to a different flora and fauna, some species adapt, some don't and go extinct. So life as such isn't in danger but life as we know it, because we could be the one to go extinct. Just look how it seems that fungus adapt to higher temperatures so they now survive in humans too.
    - monero-xmr 3y ago
      Nothing is static in nature. We were in an ice age a blink-of-an-eye ago in geologic terms. Animals migrate. Something may or may not be caused by a warming temperature, but immediately assuming all changes are caused by co2, or that all changes are inherently bad, is an unnatural understanding of natural processes.
      - notfish 3y ago
        1. “Climate scientists are claiming that all changes from climate change will be bad!” is quite the strawman. No scientist really believes this, but almost all agree that the average change will be very bad for humans. 2. Climate change does not mean “increasing CO2”. It means changes in global climate as a result of human activity - things like dumping waste in the ocean count too. CO2 isn’t causing the Anthropocene, Humans are. 3. Arguing in poor faith against climate change because the idea of global catastrophes scares you is a poor evolutionary strategy and you should reconsider your outlook.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

> Scientists have also posited that when carbon dioxide is high, plants are less efficient at taking up minerals and other elements because the root molecules that normally pull in these elements are acting at a lower capacity Nutrient absorption is often mediated by fungi and bacteria in the soil, it would be interesting to see a breakdown about how sensitive they are to elevated CO2. If we find that the process is bottlenecked by a certain soil organism, we might be able to find ways to help.

globalreset 3y ago

[flagged]

ravenstine 3y ago

I suppose this means the Carboniferous Period must not have had many insects.

JadeNB 3y ago
It did—they were enormous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Carboniferous_insects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Carboniferous_insects

syngrog66 3y ago

My brain parsed that first as "less nutritious grasshoppers." Ew! Speaking of the accelerating impacts of the carbon climate crisis -- esp on ecosystems and the food supply -- I've been building an educational comedy adventure game [SB: see below] (set about 80 years in the future) which makes several assumptions about the food supply as a core premise. Assumptions not unlike those in the films Mad Max or Idiocracy. Namely that several new types of artificially grown/manufactured food are created and promoted. Among them, a fictional slimy, fruity white "slurm" drink and a mystery meat-like goo named "glerm." Both or which smell and taste awful, of course, yet are loaded with healthy nutrients and vitamins. Most importantly, easy to mass produce and distribute, esp in a world with poisoned soils and degraded logistical infrastructure. ---- [SB] - https://synystrongames.itch.io/slartboz https://synystrongames.itch.io/slartboz

Breadmaker 3y ago

Leaf Brix maybe be a concern,if grasshoppers specific preferences. https://joegardener.com/podcast/understanding-brix-how-it-affects-plants-pests/ https://joegardener.com/podcast/understanding-brix-how-it-af...

alfor 3y ago

Also: more food, more plants, less deserts, more carbon captured.

croes 3y ago
How? Higher temperatures, less glaciers, more extreme weather, dry lakes and rivers, more deserts. It's a complex system and we don't know how it ends. We could become food too for fungi and insects that spread because of higher temperatures.
- beerpls 3y ago
  The Earth has many systems which help maintain a balance. It’s happened many times in the past Perhaps whatever is happening now is too extreme for it to do that, but it seems unlikely. The ecosystems of the planet share many deep symbioses I know i’ll be downvoted, and i’m expecting no one will actually address what i’ve said while doing it. There’s no real conservation in this topic anymore.
  - croes 3y ago
    But in the past we weren't 8 billion people who travel around the world. Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.
  - 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 3y ago
    Nice Freudian slip!
  - jgwil2 3y ago
    Nobody is suggesting that the Earth itself is under threat. The biosphere will survive but humans, especially those in poorer regions, stand to suffer greatly, and many consider it a moral imperative to mitigate that suffering. The best way to do that would seem to be avoiding the most rapid and dramatic climatic changes in order to give people and ecosystems time to adapt.

photochemsyn 3y ago

This seems questionable on several grounds. (1) Greenhouse growers often raise CO2 levels to ~1000 ppm to optimize growth (note this only works because all other nutrients are supplied at ideal levels to sustain growth, however). These crops are not known to be nutritionally deficient and I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it if they were. (2) Plants have a relatively stable ratio of nutrient requirements, with CHOPKNS CaFe Mg (mighty good) being an easy-to-remember acronym. We might be moving to a scenario in which CO2 is rarely if ever the limiting nutrient, however. Note also certain plants (C4 metabolism) have built-in CO2 concentration mechanisms, so rising CO2 might help C3 plants compete effectively. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14757584/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14757584/ "Terrestrial plants require nutrients in similar proportions" (2004) It's more probable that there's a bit of a CO2 fertilization effect, so you get a slight increase in carbon fixation while nutrient uptake remains stable, which isn t really a 'decline' as we'd normally think of it. Basically you'd get a bit more cellulose and carbohydrate formation, but each cell still needs its normal amount of N, P, K etc. to sustain protein and DNA metabolism etc. Incidentally, the decline in insect populations mentioned in the article is largely attributable to extensive use of broad-spectrum insecticides, in particular the neonicotinoids, which are organic compounds based on the nicotine molecule with various additions (chlorine, etc.) to make them more persistent and toxic, and which were introduced in the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid

Eric_WVGG 3y ago

a while back (too long to recall the sources), I was reading about extinctions and thinking, "well, something or other is going to thrive under these changing conditions." Turns out that the biggest winners of climate change are likely to be spiders and jellyfish. Great time to be an octopod.