News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Woody weeds love CO2 

Woody weeds love CO2

26 Jan, 2010 09:16 AM
HIGHER levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be contributing to the woody weed invasion that has taken over much of Australia's rangelands, and other grasslands across the world.

Concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are today about a third higher than when Europeans first drove their sheep and cattle onto the abundant grasslands of inland eastern Australia during the early 1800s.

Australian and US scientists have found that on average, woody plants are profiting more from the historically high levels of CO2 than grasses. Rising levels of CO2 may have thus helped turn many of those former grasslands into the shrublands they are today.

"Most rangeland pastoral areas across the world have seen a thickening of woody vegetation," said Dr Chris Stokes, a research scientist with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems at Townsville.

"Some of that has been ascribed to grazing practices, but some scientists also believe that it has been helped along by higher levels of CO2. I suspect very strongly that CO2 is a contributing factor, along with management."

The US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has grown key American rangeland species in a series of closed greenhouses that each mimic a different CO2 concentration, representative of a range from the last Ice Age to 2050.

The ARS team at Fort Collins, Colorado, found that high CO2 levels favoured cool-season grasses over warm-season grasses (see below) and weedy shrubs over native forage grasses.

When CO2 concentrations in the greenhouse chambers were double today's levels, at about 720 parts per million (ppm), the growth of fringed sage, a small weedy shrub, increased 40-fold.

The ARS researchers also found that plants are less sensitive to changes in today's levels of CO2 - at 384ppm, the highest for 800,000 years, and possibly the last 15 million years - than they were when CO2 levels were lower.

In 1842, when Europeans began to fully exploit Australia's rangelands, CO2 levels were at about 284ppm.

Dr Stokes cautioned against extrapolating from greenhouse trials, because increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 were likely to bring about a range of other factors, including increased temperatures and changed rainfall regimes, that muddied the picture.

CSIRO research near Townsville also established the woody plants were better equipped to benefit from higher levels of CO2, but not for reasons that were self-evident.

All plants take in CO2, which when combined with water in the presence of light results in photosynthesis and the creation of sugars and energy - a process that literally powers the living world.

Plants take in CO2 through leaf pores called stomata. Opening stomata to allow CO2 to enter the plant can be a costly business for the plant: as a rule of thumb, Dr Stokes said, for each CO2 molecule it captures, a plant loses 1000 water molecules.

When CO2 concentrations are higher, the process becomes more efficient. Each opening of a stomata captures more CO2, and the plant can be more economical about opening its pores and so lose less water.

"The biggest response to higher CO2 levels is that all plants can use water more efficiently," Dr Stokes said.

"Some of the water being saved drains deeper into the soil, to where the grass roots can't reach, so some of the water that grasses used to use was instead accessed solely by the deeper-rooted trees. Even tree seedlings were able to do really well on that extra water."

"Some of our modelling suggests that because everything is using water more efficiently, there will be a small increase in grass production - but there will be a bigger increase in tree production."

CO2, C3 and C4 plants

Most of the world's plants can be divided into two groups, C3 and C4, that relate to the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide their ancestors evolved in.

That evolution will determine how these two groups respond to increasing levels of CO2 in the modern atmosphere, CSIRO scientist Dr Chris Stokes (pictured) says.

Plants that evolved in an era of low atmospheric CO2 have a C4 metabolic pathway that includes a CO2 concentrator mechanism and high water efficiency.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are unlikely to be of direct benefit to C4 plants, which include tropical grasses like sorghum, and maize and millet.

Plants that evolved under conditions of high CO2--cool seasons grasses like wheat, soybean and cotton, and most trees--developed the C3 pathway, a metabolic process that employs an enzyme, RuBisCo, to channel CO2 into the photosynthetic process.

RuBisCo has a weakness, Dr Stokes says: because it evolved under conditions of high CO2 and low oxygen (O2), it is susceptible to being oxidised by O2.

Climbing CO2 levels play to RuBisCo's strengths. Today it has more chance of bumping into a CO2 molecule over an O2 molecule than it did in 1750, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and as a result, Dr Stokes said, elevated CO2 is likely to offer a small but as-yet unquantified efficiency advantage to C3 species.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
If scientists have found carbon to be the cause its got to be a hoax. Just ask any redneck Queenslander.
Posted by fridgimus, 26/01/2010 10:11:11 AM
Does this mean woody weeds are actually useful for sequestering carbon? And therefore we should encourage them ....?
Posted by Ralph, 27/01/2010 7:14:34 AM
The propaganda is sure being turned on! Two articles of pure bull in a row. One from an economist who would surely have a good understanding of matters of science, followed by a scientist, who surely has abandoned all thought of 'truth'!!
Posted by 'Rob Roy', 27/01/2010 7:49:11 AM
If it can be determined those woody weeds sequester a greater amount of co2 than grasses then I can only assume that there is a positive way to assess the amount of carbon removed in the carbon cycle. Thus the statements that pasture can not be included in the carbon trading market must be false. We know that there is a cycle where the plants take up co2 to photosynthesis into food to promote is growth. Once eaten by an herbivore and goes through the digestion process the methane emitted is then returned to the atmosphere and the cycle is complete. I would say that if it were money it is a cash neutral transaction. In simple terms this means that nobody owes anybody anything. When you rent a warehouse to store your stuff you pay the owner rent, when you take it out then there is no rent charged. Apply the same principle to the grass in the paddock with one exception. The carbon which is stored in the roots and transferred to the soil the payment is continuous as it is permanent. The co2 amount which is used in the provision of food for the grass is only paid for until it is eaten and returned to the atmosphere. There for we develop a cash flow for the carbon equity on farm.
Posted by steve, 27/01/2010 8:22:51 AM
To KRUDD & his sycophantic cronies: Go pick on someone else! Us downtrodden poor dumb & stoopid country folk are sick of being blamed for this so-called problem. Thanks to the first 3 respondents for summing up this piece of journalistic trash. Rural Press - please stop paying your "writers" to spew this garbage; Get a new editor with a backbone; and treat your main subscribers with a bit of respect.
Posted by Oh please!, 27/01/2010 8:53:17 AM
Don't just assume Rob Roy that all that is posited by these postings are nonsense. This ain't new. In the late 90s we were aware of the phenomenon referred to as the "fertiliser effect". The fact that it was recognised and accepted to a degree by virtually everyone in the debate only reinforces the failure of the Beattie Government when drafting the Vegetation Act. No recognition of the need to effectively control regrowth, thickening and encroachment - just a whole raft of measures that added to the advantages of being a woody species in the Queensland landscape. It should be noted - this is a north Australian problem while acknowledging that the temperate zone has its own problems. This confirmation only adds to the frustration of those who participated in the debate over vegetation policy. Eventually the work of Queensland scientists who supported graziers and land owners - at their cost - will be recognised. Add this to the litany of policy failure by the Australian Greenhouse Office and policy makers at every level of Government. Is it any wonder that these blogs are filled to bursting with cynicism and distrust of Government of every stamp!
Posted by phil_oc, 27/01/2010 9:50:32 AM
How were CO2 levels measured in 1842 let alone 800,000 years ago. This article is absolute unfounded theory being grasped by global warming thought promoters. If the so called scientists were genuine they would be calling for the cessation of all fossil fuel burning in order to reduce the imagined high CO2 levels. For a start, lets stop using electricity for non essential purposes such as night sporting events, illumination of empty commercial office buildings & the various enormous mineral refineries dotted all over Australia.
Posted by steffi, 27/01/2010 12:56:00 PM
Does that include the imported woody weed called lantana? ....... and do canetoads diminish our oxygen levels...... I'd be happy to park the stick rake and sell the cows if someone would pay for growing lantana and dogwood to diminish CO2. Woody weeds may also like acid soil to grow in.... another saving in agi lime. How about some properly researched and balanced reporting rather than this mono take on a hoary old chestnut.
Posted by pepper, 27/01/2010 5:51:24 PM
Fairfax, I cannot read your rubbish on CO2 anymore, who is pulling your strings, or are you just as ill-informed as the politicians spouting this. Carbon Trading, carbon taxing etc, is all a scam to raise money for the IMF and World Bank to impliment the one world government. What happened to REAL journalists - an off-shore cartel of bankers, high-jacking our economy and holding us to ransom, not enough of a story to go on. NO - let's all talk about paying for the air we breathe out. Of course this scam/climategate/no hopenhagon - is all common knowledge in Europe and the US, but then they don't have 'Chinese style web filtering' do they! WAKE UP AUSTRALIA
Posted by Whoever, 27/01/2010 10:09:13 PM
Wow, the botanists and other biologists are in on the conspiracy as well and google is in on it as well, the number of entries on "c4 grass co2" is huge and there's even more for "c4 grass evolution". The paleontologists and geologists must be in on it as well as they're talking about ancient CO2 levels as well (Ian Plimer must be in on it too as he reckons CO2 levels used to be higher as well). It's all a big conspiracy I tells ya.
Posted by spottedquoll, 28/01/2010 7:51:58 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Dr Chris Stokes, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Townsville, Qld.
Dr Chris Stokes, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Townsville, Qld.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
26 January, 2010
25 January, 2010
POLL
Q: What is the biggest challenge currently facing Australian agriculture?

Animal activists
(9.6%)

Poor urban perceptions
(8.9%)

Red tape
(6.6%)

Low farmgate prices
(39.1%)

Carbon emissions policies
(10.6%)

Property rights
(15.6%)

Other
(9.5%)

Total Votes: 861
Poll Date: 24 January, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...