Climate change stunting growth of century-old Antarctic moss shoots

One hundred years ago, two teams of explorers raced to be the first to reach the South Pole. Roald Engelbregt Gravning Amundsen reached the South Pole on December 14, 1911.

Thirty-three days later on 17 January 1912 the Terra Nova Expedition led by Robert Falcon Scott arrived at the Pole in second place. At the same time in East Antarctica, the Australasian Antarctic Expedition led by Douglas Mawson was searching for the South Magnetic Pole.

On their expeditions for King and country, Scott and Mawson carried out some of the first scientific studies in Antarctica. Scott's ill-fated expedition found fossils of Gondwanaland trees showing that Antarctica was once covered in .

Even today, we tend to think of Antarctica as the last untouched wilderness preserved from human impact by International Treaty. However, despite its remoteness and vastness it is still affected by anthropogenic .

A paper to appear in the January issue of shows how the dominant plants in Antarctica have been affected by modern climate change. In a handful of coastal Antarctic 'oases' void of permanent ice cover, lush moss beds grow during the short summer season from December to February using melt water from streams and lakes. Up until now, measuring the seasonal growth rate of these plants has been extremely difficult and hence it was impossible to assess the impact of our .

This research, conducted by a team of from the University of Wollongong (UOW) and nuclear physicists from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), shows how the increased concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere resulting from nuclear weapons testing (mostly in the late 1950s and early 1960s, called the 'the bomb spike') can be used to accurately date the age of the moss shoots along their stems in a similar way to tree-rings.

Professor Sharon Robinson from UOW's Institute for and Environmental Management (School of Biological Sciences) said the team found that that most of the plants were growing 50 years ago when nuclear testing was at its peak.

In some species the peak of the radiocarbon bomb spike was found just 15 mm from the top of the 50 mm shoot suggesting that these plants may be more than 100 years old.

'Accurate dating along the moss stem allows us to determine the very slow growth rates of these mosses (ranging from 0.2 to 3.5 mm per year). Remarkably, these plants were already growing during the heroic age of Antarctic exploration. In terms of age these mosses are effectively the old growth forests of Antarctica -- in miniature," Professor Robinson said.

Although increased temperature and precipitation in the polar regions due to climate change are predicted to increase growth rates, the scientists found that at some sites growth rates have declined since the 1980s. They suggest that this is likely due to moss beds drying out, which appears to be caused by increased wind speeds around Antarctica that are linked to the Antarctic ozone hole.

In the 100 years since the start of scientific research in Antarctica, contamination of Earth's atmosphere with increased radioactivity due to nuclear weapons testing has led to radiocarbon labelling of Antarctic plants.

"This has allowed scientists to show that climate change has made the driest continent on Earth an even harsher environment for plant life," Professor Robinson said.

Explore further

Antarctic flowering plants warm to climate change

More information: The paper is published in Global Change Biology by: Clarke, L. J., Robinson, S. A., Hua, Q., Ayre, D. J. and Fink, D. (2011), "Radiocarbon bomb spike reveals biological effects of Antarctic climate change". Global Change Biology. Wiley-Blackwell, October 2011, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02560.x
Provided by Wiley
Citation: Climate change stunting growth of century-old Antarctic moss shoots (2011, November 29) retrieved 27 June 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 29, 2011
Antarctica - despite its remoteness and vastness - is still affected by anthropogenic climate change.

For another point of view, see:

1. The UN's Durban Climate Talks

2. "What is Wrong With the UN's IPCC?" by Professor Ross McKitrick

3. IPCC: Fix It or Fold It

4. "Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)"

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA principal
Investigator for Apollo

Dec 02, 2011
The comment above just shows that there is a concentrated effort to make it seem that there is equivalent science on the side of the deniers. Since they represent monied interests like coal and oil companies whose ox would be gored were there a legitimate effort to forestall anthropogenic climate change, it is hard to take them seriously. The IPCC data is vast and deep and supported by a huge majority of the scientific community. As in any large cooperative effort, there are a few flaws, but they have been shown to have no effect on the conclusions. As various governments and militaries contemplate the consequences, even formerly resistant ones are starting to put pressure on all parties to take action. And yet, it may be too late. A few dollars saved now may cost the lives of billions. Is it possible that the IPCC is wrong. Of course, but in any risk-benefit calculation, the overwhelming odds that they are right needs to cause us to get into action. continued

Dec 02, 2011
What is so depressing is that the requisite actions, though costing some present dollars, will improve the health of people across this planet as well as safeguard the long term economic stability. Those who are profiting from the status quo are obviously profiting sufficiently to lobby heavily and pay for junk science. In addition, we are subsidizing them heavily, which makes exactly zero sense. If what they are doing is so perfect, why do they need these enormous subsidies. It is their power, not their need that creates the subsidies. And, they will probably win, while the rest of us lose.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more