Forest Growth Can't Keep Up With CO2 Emissions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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.

Researchers have found that although higher CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere do increase forest growth, that growth is limited by soil fertility. As a consequence, more plant growth won't compensate¿as some had hoped¿for higher CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuels. "When we exposed trees in low-nutrient soil to elevated CO₂, they maintained growth increases only with added nutrients," explains investigator David Ellworth of the University of Michigan. "While CO₂ initially acts as a stimulus to the tree's physiology, our experiments suggest that short-term increases in growth are not sustainable over the long term in low-nutrient environments."

Ellsworth and his colleagues, who published their findings in today's Nature, looked at two low-nutrient spots: the moderately fertile Duke Forest of Duke University and the infertile sand hills of North Carolina. In both places they exposed maturing loblolly pine trees to CO₂ levels equivalent to what the earth's climate may contain 50 years from now. At the first site, they compared the growth of the test plants with that of normal trees nearby. For the first three years, the test plants grew 34 percent more than the others. In the following four years, though, their added growth dropped to 6 percent. They also found that fertilized plants grew much faster.

At the infertile site, extra CO₂ led to virtually no additional growth, whereas extra fertilizer did. Plants given both fertilizer and more CO₂ grew by 74 percent. "Trees can sustain increases in biomass only as long as they find enough water and nutrients in their ecosystems," Ellsworth concludes. "I don't think we can assume existing forests, with their fertility limitations, will completely offset rising CO₂ without soil amendments. We will more likely find solutions in measures such as burning less fossil fuel and planting more trees with high-nutrient soils."

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