Surface-level ozone pollution set to reduce tree growth 10 percent by 2100

Dec 09, 2008

Modern day concentrations of ground level ozone pollution are decreasing the growth of trees in the northern and temperate mid-latitudes, as shown in a paper publishing today in Global Change Biology. Tree growth, measured in biomass, is already 7% less than the late 1800s, and this is set to increase to a 17% reduction by the end of the century.

Ozone pollution is four times greater now than prior to the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s; if modern dependence on fossil fuels continues at the current pace, future ozone concentrations will be at least double current levels by the end of this century with the capacity to further decrease the growth of trees.

The study is the first statistical summary of individual experimental measurements of how ozone will damage the productivity of trees, including data from 263 peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Ozone is the third strongest greenhouse gas, directly contributing to global warming, and is the air pollutant considered to be the most damaging to plants. But more importantly, it has the potential to leave more carbon dioxide, ranked as the first strongest greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere by decreasing carbon assimilation in trees. Ozone pollution occurs when nitrogen oxides have a photochemical reaction with volatile organic compounds.

"This research quantifies the mean response of trees to ozone pollution measured in terms of total tree biomass, and all component parts such as leaf, root and shoot, lost due to ozone pollution," said Dr. Victoria Wittig, lead author of the study. "Looking at how ozone pollution affects trees is important because of the indirect impact on carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere which will further enhance global warming, in addition to ozone's already potent direct impact."

In addition to ozone pollution reducing the strength of trees to hold carbon in the northern temperate mid-latitudes by reducing tree growth, the research also indicates that broad-leaf trees, such as poplars, are more sensitive to ozone pollution than conifers, such as pines, and that root growth is suppressed more than aboveground growth.

"Beyond the consequences for global warming, the study also infers that in mixed forests conifers will be favored over broad-leaved trees, and that the decrease in root size will increase the vulnerability to storms," said Wittig.

Source: Wiley

Explore further: Scientists identify most pressing environmental issues posed by pharmaceuticals

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Researcher reports on urban "heat islands"

Sep 26, 2014

With longer and hotter heat waves in the offing, a Harvard professor has put the urban "heat island" under the microscope, finding smaller heat islands—mainly occupied by the poor—within city limits, ...

Recommended for you

Can fair trade plastic save people and the planet?

6 hours ago

(Phys.org) —It's old news that open-source 3D printing is cheaper than conventional manufacturing, not to mention greener and incredibly useful for making everything from lab equipment to chess pieces. ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2008
Wouldn't land usage and logging practices be at greater fault in this circumstance seeing as the trees are measured in total biomass and not average dimension?
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2008
More harum-scarum...

Add anything you want to the list of greenhouse gases, then make a crystal ball prediction that concentrations will increase (you have a 50-50 chance of being right), and then demand preventive measures.
MikeB
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2008
This is a very tough problem... oh wait maybe we should just plant 15 or 20% more seedlings?
Nahhhhh.... better to whine and moan and get another big government grant.
MikeB
not rated yet Dec 17, 2008
I was quite disappointed in this article since there was not even one use of the word "alarming". What are the odds? I guess the physorg editor let one slip by.