New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Tree Root Study May Unbalance Greenhouse-Gas Accounting

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.


In terms of greenhouse-gas accounting, forests land in the credit column because they absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. As a result, these carbon sinks, as they are called, can counterbalance increasing man-made CO2 emissions. But quantifying their effects is extremely difficult. Further complicating matters, new findings published today in the journal Science suggest that some of the assumptions currently being employed to make such estimates may be incorrect.

The roots of a tree provide the connection between it and the surrounding soil. Until recently researchers hypothesized that roots less than two millimeters in diameter, which are responsible for most below-ground nutrient cycling, live for about a year. Roser Matamala of Argonne National Laboratory and her colleagues have now completed a five-year-long experiment that suggests otherwise. The team exposed two types of trees--sweetgums and loblolly pines--to CO2 labeled with carbon 13 and then tracked the heavy carbon as it appeared in the soil. According to the report, the roots lasted between 1.2 and nine years, with the pine tree roots lasting longer on average than those of the sweetgum. "These long turnover times suggest that root production and turnover in forests have been overestimated," the authors write, "and that sequestration of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon in forest soils may be lower than currently estimated."

Unlike balancing a checkbook, reconciling the greenhouse gas budget is extraordinarily complex. Tiny tree roots may seem like a small thing to be focusing on, but Susan E. Trumbore of the University of California at Irvine and Julia B. Gaudinski of the University of California at Santa Cruz note in an accompanying commentary that "unless we recognize that root behavior is as complex as that of its counterparts above ground, the rules governing allocation of carbon to roots and the role of roots in soil carbon cycling will remain well-kept secrets."

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