New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Predators Help Plants Put Away Carbon

Plants store more carbon where predators roam

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The carbon cycle is essential to life on earth, but scientists still struggle to grasp its complexities. Most research to date has focused on major sources of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, such as deforestation and the use of fossil fuels. Now some scientists have begun to explore subtler factors, such as the interplay between plants and animals. A new study has come to the counterintuitive conclusion that plants might accumulate more carbon in the presence of predators and herbivores than they do in isolated locales, where they are less likely to be eaten or trampled.

To tease out interactions between the plant and animal worlds, Yale University ecologist Oswald Schmitz and his colleagues built three enclosed grassland environments—one with meadow vegetation only; one with vegetation and herbivorous grasshoppers; and one with carnivorous spiders, along with the grasshoppers and plants. The researchers found that plants in the third environment, the home to both herbivores and carnivores, stored 40 percent more carbon than plants in the grasshopper enclosure.

It makes intuitive sense that arachnid predators, which eat the herbivorous grasshoppers, would limit the consumption of vegetation and thus free plants to store more carbon than they would in the enclosure where herbivores grazed unchecked. Surprisingly, however, the plants sharing an enclosure with grasshoppers and spiders also packed away significantly more carbon—20 percent more—than did the isolated plants. “You would think that an environment with no herbivores or predators would lead to peak carbon storage,” says Schmitz, a co-author of the study, published in June in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. “But that's hardly the case.”


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.


Why? Perhaps a degree of herbivory stimulation—a light nibble here and there—causes some unidentified physiological change in plants that boosts carbon uptake, Schmitz says, “but the truth is that we really don't know.”

The research highlights how ecological changes can have significant, and unforeseen, climate impacts. “Right now there is a crisis in terms of predator diversity loss,” Schmitz says. “And that may mean that we are losing the potential to help regulate the carbon cycle in ways that go far beyond just growing more trees.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe