The consequences are grave: Nitric oxide (NO) rises from farms, power plants and vehicles, for instance, in the upper Midwest and drifts toward New England forests where nitric acid (HNO3) in the rain leaches important plant nutrients like potassium, calcium and magnesium from the soil, Schlesinger says. Researchers at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in White Mountain National Forest, N.H., found evidence of this rain and reported that it may cause a reduction in cold or stress tolerance in some tree species including red spruce and sugar maple. Similarly, nitric oxide has been documented as rising from similar sources in Kentucky and Tennessee and drifting toward the Great Smoky Mountains, where some of the worst acid rain and forest decline has been observed, Schlesinger says. Acid in rain also liberates aluminum in the soil, which can be is poisonous to insects and fish if the metal enters stream runoff. And, excess available nitrogen in rain may promote some species of plants as it diminishes others. In fact, researchers at the University of Minnesota reported in 2008 that atmospheric nitrogen deposition reduced plant species numbers in the state's prairie grasslands by 17 percent.
In the U.S. there are neither comprehensive laws nor adequate monitoring devices for regulating atmospheric nitrogen emissions from livestock and farms. Europeans passed the Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone in 1999, a pact signed by 49 countries, but the U.S. has dragged its feet. Schlesinger thinks that national arguments over climate change have allowed the U.S. to ignore the nitrogen problem, which he predicts will be the next big environmental issue. "It's another example of humans upsetting global biogeochemical cycles with unintended consequences," he says. Since Gothenburg, Europe has decreased its nitrogen emissions by a third, whereas U.S. emissions remain flat. And the U.S. has increased its ammonia emissions, an atmospheric component of the nitrogen problem, by 27 percent from 1970 to 2005, according to a 2009 paper in Environmental Science & Technology.
Without intervention, the problem will likely worsen. With world population predicted to grow from 6.5 billion to nine billion by 2050, agriculture must feed more mouths, and that's probably going to require more nitrogen fertilizer, thereby resulting in more nitric acid rain and atmospheric pollution. The Integrated Nitrogen Committee's 247-page draft report discusses inputs, flows and management options for reactive nitrogen in the U.S. environment. It also discusses ways to monitor atmospheric emissions, currently the weak link in the nitrogen control picture.
It's clear that humans are adding nitrogen to Earth's surface. Researchers do not know yet where it all goes, "but we do know that increasing concentrations of nitrogen in unexpected places will cause significant environmental damage that we will all learn to regret," Schlesinger wrote in a 2009 report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Still, Aneja sees promise. Agriculture has adopted modern technologies and science to maximize productivity, but it has not yet been subjected to the same environmental regulations applied to other modern industries, he says. "The Integrated Nitrogen Committee report is an effort to develop more stringent measures," he adds, "and we're not ignoring the atmospheric contribution."
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentIf we are forbidden to excrete even Nitrogen, how could we live on Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can (we will) live at population levels that do not cause all these problems. The question is, how will we get there? Forced by Nature, or through a reasoned effort that minimises human suffering?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKonkon, how can we Europeans live on Earth with smaller nitrogen emissions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, I forgot, we don't have humvees and 30 year old muscle cars with no catalytic converters.
We are indeed producing pollutants which I very much wish to see eradicated but those of you who think that this is about anything but money and power are naive. If mankind were truly able to significantly adversely affect earth's environment as a whole, we would have destroyed ourselves long ago and good old mother earth would be doing nicely now and would even have forgotten we were ever here. We can all talk about cleaning up the planet and showing concern over poisoning our environment with each new discovery, but the truth is that the big money will do what they want, where they want and when they want. Some, like Dimitris will blame it on some other country when the people who live there have absolutely no say in the matter, but you will hate them anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Care for her and all her creatures"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthink about this!
Daily think about this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Care for her and all her creatures"
Before I changed my major to geology it was sociology & my interest remains. One of the papers I read on the failure of companies to allow their employees to work from hone ( the big benefit of the internet) was that bosses were dissatisfied without the employees present regardless of the accomplished work. There seems to be a necessary ego stroke in the requirement that employees be physically present, a psychological necessity in our social system. After all, what is religion but a congregation of compliant bodies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchlesinger says. Emissions from fertilizers are the chief source of atmospheric nitric oxide, but motor vehicles have now overtaken coal power plants as the secondary most critical source of this problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember that when the Amish farms around Chessie are in the news again. It is artificial fertilizer that is the problem. Electric cars would just allow more coal power plants creating a see-saw between cars & coal plants. And the coast to coast diesel rig transports aren't going to stop, are they? And planes are third?
That is of course common sense. But a half century of common sense hasn't halted progress. I looked up Rube Goldberg on Wiki & it seems other countries saw this simplification-into-complexity coming also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have several Knols which comment on this. I suspect we are merely mutations which have found a niche; our predators exist, they are the virus & bacteria & they need a dense population to do their work.
Please provide a citation for the Uni. of Minnesota study you quote in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNavdoc is right, it's always about the money and how long can they keep on making that money without being stopped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBring back the small farms, that would end unemployment, feed the nation and stop the pollution from mega factory farms.
But not to worry, there is a solution to all of it coming very soon.
A change is happening as we speak.
A better, safer and more productive fertilizer has been created. Smaller farms are coming back as organics, and in the end the people will win.
Can't fool all the people, all the time, even if you do advertise on TV 24/7.
Why is that there is all this reporting of things happening to the Earth and problems that are potentially devastating to the people and the environment by scientists but when they are asked why or what is going on they don't know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow are they reporting these things but don't understand them?
Are the scientist just stupid and pretending to be working?
Or are they in over their heads and need to be out painting billboards instead of in a science lab?
Or don't they read their own studies?
An example:
"It's clear that humans are adding nitrogen to Earth's surface. Researchers do not know yet where it all goes, "but we do know that increasing concentrations of nitrogen in unexpected places will cause significant environmental damage that we will all learn to regret," Schlesinger wrote in a 2009 report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
But then who can question scientists who have all kinds of degrees? Of course when this happens in medical science, they always say, "we don't know what the appendix does, but it's ok to remove it. It must not do anything if we can't figure out what purpose it serves."
Never fails. They do it all the time, for decades, till somebody says, "Hey, it does do something and we better leave it alone!"
Bunch of educated fools, all of them.
And don't question me, I have a couple of degrees too!
Did you read the article, because that is where the quotation came from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this