Researchers Find That Carbon Dioxide Does Not Boost Forest Growth

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.

Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, have been on the upswing over the last century. How the earth's plant life, particularly trees, will react to the change remains unclear. Some researchers have proposed, however, that the rising concentrations will spur plant growth and thus allow them to store additional amounts of carbon dioxide, thereby mitigating the atmospheric increase to some degree. Now a report published in the journal Science disputes this claim. A four-year study of a forest in Switzerland indicates that additional carbon dioxide does not boost tree growth.

A team of researchers led by Christian Korner of the University of Basel sprayed a 500-square-meter patch of deciduous forest with excess carbon dioxide for four years. The mature trees within it were exposed to two tons of extra carbon dioxide each day during the six-month-long growing season, giving them access to almost 50 percent more of the gas than is currently in the atmosphere. Overall, there was no increase in stem growth or leaf production during the study period, although the trees did cycle carbon dioxide and rerelease in to the air more quickly. It turns out not all species reacted in the same way to the excess carbon dioxide, revealing a flaw in earlier studies that focused on a single species.

The new experiment still has drawbacks, its planners note, making it a "compromise between realism and precision." For one, the timescale may still be too short to fully understand the effects of increased carbon dioxide. It is also possible that belowground growth of root systems could potentially store additional carbon in the soil. Future work will need to ascertain whether the new results apply to conifers and tropical trees, among other varieties.

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