Climate Change May Not Benefit Crops

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide may not be as helpful to crops as previously thought, according to a new study. As global temperatures rise, soil moisture levels fall. Laboratory experiments suggested that the crop losses resulting from this loss of moisture would be offset by a boost in fertilization from rising levels of carbon dioxide. Now field studies show that carbon dioxide's beneficial effects are not nearly as strong in real crop-growing environments.

During photosynthesis, plants convert carbon dioxide into carbohydrates, fuel that allows plants to build tissue and grow. Based on the chemical conversions that take place during photosynthesis, scientists can predict how much bigger plants will become in an environment with increased carbon dioxide levels. In studies in greenhouses and enclosed chambers, this prediction is accurate. Those studies led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to conclude in 2001 that crop yields will increase with global warming, and that the world's food supply is not in immediate danger.

But greenhouse and chamber environments lead to higher temperatures, poor airflow and trapped humidity, and do not imitate real crop-growing conditions, according to the paper published in the current issue of Science. "A plant breeding company certainly wouldn't select varieties based on chamber studies, so we don't think our future predictions should be based on those. We think they should be based on rigorous field studies, and that's what FACE allows us to do," says co-author Elizabeth Ainsworth of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


FACE, which stands for free-air concentration enrichment, is an apparatus that enabled the researchers to control the concentration of gases in the air without affecting any other variables such as temperature or humidity. In FACE studies, carbon dioxide is released from different points surrounding a section of a crop field. A computer program constantly monitors wind direction, wind velocity and carbon dioxide concentration in the field, adjusting the positions and amount of gas released so that the carbon dioxide concentration remains constant.

The researchers studied soybeans, wheat, rice, maize and sorghum at the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels predicted to exist 50 to100 years from now. They found that in the field, only about half the expected increase in crop yield actually occurred. Although these results cast doubt on the IPCC's conclusion about the safety of the world's food supply, the researchers believe that a solution exists. According to Ainsworth, the low crop yield means there must be something limiting the plants from taking full advantage of the extra carbon dioxide. "If we can breed for plants that don't have those limitations, they can respond better to the carbon dioxide increases in the future," Ainsworth remarks. "It's a call for more research in this field."

About Karen Schrock

Kate Schrock has been an editor of Scientific American MIND since 2007, where she edits feature articles and runs Head Lines, the magazine's news department. After studying astronomy and physics at the University of Southern California, she worked in the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging at the University of California, Los Angeles, studying the brain structure of people with schizophrenia. She then enrolled in the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting program at New York University, where she earned a master's degree in journalism.

More by Karen Schrock

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe