view counter

Donate to SolveClimate News

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government


Academic, Non-Governmental

Studies Find Faster Tree Growth as Climate Changes, Potential to Drive Further Warming

Forests Interacting with Climate Change in Many Ways

By Dave Levitan

Feb 3, 2010

Forests in the eastern United States appear to be growing faster than they should be, and increases in temperature and carbon dioxide are the likely culprits.

“We’ve known for 30 or 40 years that extra CO2 and extra temperature cause trees to grow, most of the climate models predict this,” said Geoffrey Parker, of the in Maryland. “It’s just that there haven’t been many field studies that really corroborated it.”

Parker’s team used a combination of two types of tree data to put together a comprehensive look at how trees along the western edge of the Chesapeake Bay have been growing in recent years. They found that the forest, including both young and old trees, has been adding weight at an exceptionally high rate. In fact, in 90 percent of the measurements taken, the rate of growth of the trees was higher than the expected rate. The were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers narrowed the causes underlying that growth bonanza to three factors. First, local measurements taken over 17 years showed a 12 percent increase in CO2 levels in the area. Temperature measurements from the nearby Baltimore-Washington International Airport over about 100 years indicated a significant increase, as well, and the growing season — based on first and last frosts of the winter — has grown by about seven days.

Parker stressed that there isn’t enough information about this effect to truly assess the potential risk or benefit to forests, or to the climate system as a whole. He did say, however, that “if this is a widespread generality that this extra growth is going on, it may well have contributed to slowing the increase in atmospheric CO2.” The “metabolism” of the forest seems to have sped up, he said, and it is certainly possible that some negative effects could be associated with such a process.

Jeff Hayward, the climate initiative manager for the non-profit , said there is often a focus on the beneficial effects of forests with regard to climate change, but there are limits to that side of the story.

“One on this story might be, ‘Wow, yippee, trees might be taking up more extra carbon, and they’re growing faster and getting bigger. Isn’t this a positive thing?’” Hayward said.

However, both Hayward and Parker pointed out that this trend is unlikely to continue indefinitely. At a certain point, other limiting factors including nutrients and available moisture will limit the rate of the trees’ growth.

And even if the increased carbon dioxide could be adding mass to certain forests, there are well-documented negative effects that climate change is having on forests as well. The most striking of these may be the ongoing invasion of pine bark beetles over vast swaths of the Rockies, where millions of trees are being consumed by the beetle infestation. In British Columbia alone, an area bigger than Ireland has already been largely destroyed, and the unprecedented beetle swarms have been linked to warming temperatures.

Another examining how climate change may be affecting forests looked to the north, where vegetation will most likely expand into the Arctic as the region warms. Also published in PNAS, the study led by University of California, Berkeley, graduate student Abigail Swann found that if deciduous trees like poplar and aspen expand into previously clear parts of the Arctic then multiple feedback loops will kick in and help to accelerate climate change.

“When you consider deciduous trees, a pathway through the greenhouse warming associated with additional water vapor is capable of contributing at least equally as the change in the color of the surface, which was previously considered to be the really important way that trees change climate,” Swann said.

which of these vegetation

which of these vegetation region will be least likely to find trees?

my reaction when I first read of this research

Today everywhere I look I run into this story and feel like I'm Alice gone through the looking glass. It is about a long term study in Maryland purporting to show that - thanks to rising levels of CO2 - trees are growing faster. This is presented as though it's a good thing - you know, the old "CO2 is food for plants"!

Leaving aside the fact that the human equivalent of that theory would be that bingeing on a high calorie diet and getting fat is good for humans in the long run (uh, it's not), it completely ignores the effects of the "other" greenhouse gases - nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, acetaldehyde - that bathe the trees in toxic ozone and acid rain. How this study could find trees thriving in Maryland is astonishing.

So, I wrote a letter to the lead author, copied below, to find if any "trick" has been employed to "hide the decline". And the only other thing I would note is that the funding for the project is from HSBC Bank. A quick search on Yahoo for "HSBC" greenwash (which means, posturing for public relations or advertising purposes to be environmentally friendly while actually pursuing decidedly unfriendly policies) yielded 46,700 results. Just sayin'!

Here's my letter:

Dear Dr. Parker,

Today in Science Daily I read this report of your study indicating that trees are growing faster because of higher concentrations of CO2.

I do not doubt this and in fact the FACE project in Wisconsin supports your findings. However, my observations that trees are in decline and in fact dying in Eastern forests at unprecedented rates does not seem to be reflected in your study.

I am very interested to understand why this should be. How recent are your measurements - does your analysis include the past 18 months? I date the onset of an obvious, widespread and rapid decline to late summer of 2008.

Is there any other way that your study could be set up so that it would not reflect tree decline? Do you exclude dead trees from growth measurements, for example?

I look forward to corresponding with you and as I live in Northern NJ I am hopeful I will be able to come to the Smithsonian Center to tour your plots. It would be a great pleasure to meet you and get more details about your project, if your time permits. In any event I look forward to seeing your forests first hand.

I have been posting photos of trees and links to research at . This post () in particular has a video of the FACE CO2 and ozone projects.

Gail Zawacki
Oldwick, NJ

update: I haven't yet had a reply from Dr. Parker

Climate change and its reality

Please watch my video

It's about climate change, earth catastrophe and our planet as we lives in.

Thank you.

The trees are growing

The trees are growing faster... GOOD! Then if the trees (which give off oxygen and take in carbon dioxide) are growning faster, then that means that the effects of "Global Warming" and "Cliamte Change" will balance itself out. GOOD FOR THE TREES! We need more trees!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options