Energy | Nature

Scientist stuns experts by saying trees worsen greenhouse effect

Hamburg- A leading expert in Germany has spawned a major scientific debate by claiming that trees put millions of tons of methane into the atmosphere every year exacerbating the greenhouse effect. Amid controversy, Dr Frank Keppler of the Max Planck ...
Posted : Mon, 14 May 2007 04:46:00 GMT
By : DPA
Category : Environment
News Alerts by Email ( click here )
Environment News | Home
Hamburg- A leading expert in Germany has spawned a major scientific debate by claiming that trees put millions of tons of methane into the atmosphere every year exacerbating the greenhouse effect. Amid controversy, Dr Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry has reaffirmed findings by his team in Mainz, Germany, in January 2006 that they had detected methane exhaled from living

plants.

"I am 100 per cent confident that plants emit methane," he told Chemistry World magazine, insisting that as yet unpublished research would confirm his findings once and for all.

Keppler's unexpected discovery has caused heated debate among biologists and atmospheric chemists. Though bacteria in soil or decaying matter produce methane in anaerobic conditions, there seems to be no reason or mechanism for living plants to emit the gas in an oxygen-rich environment.

The implications of the findings are worrying: on a global scale, Keppler estimated, methane emissions from plants and trees could amount to hundreds of millions of tonnes a year, throwing scientists' understanding of the greenhouse gas's sources and sinks way off kilter.

But many researchers have queried the global impact, suggesting that Keppler's scale-up calculations, based on methane emission per unit of metabolically active mass of plant, were a gross overestimate.

Yet until recently, no published research has questioned Keppler's central discovery that plants can emit methane in the first place.

Recently, however, rival researchers reported that plants emit virtually no methane whatsoever.

Tom Dueck, of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, says his team's independent investigations are the first published results to show that plants' methane emissions are negligible or zero. That means their contribution to the global methane budget, and potentially to climate change, simply isn't worth worrying about.

The Dutch group did not repeat Keppler's experiment exactly, Dueck said, "because it was not methodologically sound." Instead, his team boosted the sensitivity of their methane measurements by growing plants in an atmosphere saturated with a heavy carbon isotope, 13C.

If the plants subsequently emitted methane (13CH4), it would be easy to spot above the background of light (12CH4) methane in the air. Photo-acoustic spectroscopy (a laser-based measuring technique) was used to detect the gas.

Dueck said it showed that even a large mass of plants produced negligible methane emissions - at most 0.3 per cent of Keppler's values.

So if Dueck's team is correct, where did Keppler go wrong? Dueck suggests that Keppler's team might have forgotten that gas trapped in plants' intercellular spaces, and in air pockets in the soil, could diffuse out and be counted as "emitted" by the plant in their experiment.

But Keppler rejects this, saying that this sort of methane desorption could only be partially responsible for the amounts of gas he found.

Indeed, he suggests that Dueck's use of heavy isotopes may have actually changed the plants' metabolic preferences, killing off their methane emissions. Dueck counters that no literature reports suggest this might be a problem.

Copyright DPA

Share/Save/Bookmark

Article : Scientist stuns experts by saying trees worsen greenhouse effect
Print this article
Email this article

Stay Updated
News gadget on your Google homepage
Subscribe to a news feed in Google Reader


Related News



Have your Say
Name
Email
Subject
Your Comment

Enter Verification code
 
  


 
Your Comments

Need for further research
By: Solomon Gebre-Tsadik , Sat, 19 May 2007 21:01:17 GMT

The findings need to be further verified by Researchers in the field. I am confused whether to plant a tree or not especially during Ethiopian Millennium. Anyway, it is sometimes better to expect what is unexpected (Chinese proverb??)



Scientist stuns experts by saying trees worsen greenhouse effect
By: Paul de Burgh-Day , Wed, 16 May 2007 14:11:16 GMT

More muddying the waters?
Since I am not a scientist, I cannot get into that level.
I merely ask one simple question.

In the last century - at least, the extent of forests on this planet has been drastically reduced. The scale of reduction keeps accelerating as vast tracts of forest are decimated - the Amazon, Indonesia, Tasmania . . .
Given this, how does the claim by Dr Keppler stand up?
If he is right, then the global methane emissions from trees must be plunging.
Surely the levels back when much of the global land mass was covered in forests would have been much, much higher than today.

Maybe it is time for Dr Keppler to hang up his lab apron?


Ignoring the Obvious
By: Jason dinAlt , Wed, 16 May 2007 01:50:42 GMT

If, for the sake of argument, we assume plants do emit CH4, it would imply there exists an unidentified methane sink, which keeps CH4 levels in the atmosphere in check. If this were not so, the levels of CH4 in the atmosphere would be much higher than they currently are.

By analogy, life gives off CO2, another greenhouse gas. This does not imply biogenic CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise. Each unit of CO2 given off by living organisms is reabsorbed by other organisms, thus holding CO2 levels relatively constant; that is at least until we started adding CO2 to the atmosphere from other sources.

The key difference between biogenic CO2 and CH4 and anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 is the latter throws the equilibrium out of balance. This results in higher levels of both gases and thus the predicted corresponding rise in temperature.


If trees created global warming....
By: Steve Savage , Wed, 16 May 2007 01:48:12 GMT

Earth would look like venus by now.
I think there's nothing wrong with findings that trees may emit methane, but lets look at it this way.

Trees emit methane ---> methane is global warming --->trees are reponsible for global warming

Thats just plain silly. First of all, what is the impact of methane compared to the other global warming gases? How much do trees even emit? How do trees offset global warming by their absorption of Carbon Dioxide?

Science is a great thing, but one should never let some stupid political pundit wield some tiny sliver of science and proclaim "here's the problem!". sorry you aren't qualified. Scientists not only find facts, but they can also give us information on how those facts apply to the real world.


Ignoring the Obvious
By: Jason dinAlt , Wed, 16 May 2007 01:43:45 GMT

If, for the sake of argument, we assume plants do emit CH4, it would imply there exists an unidentified methane sink, which keeps CH4 levels in the atmosphere in check. If this were not so, the levels of CH4 in the atmosphere would be much higher than they currently are.

By analogy, life gives off CO2, another greenhouse gas. This does not imply biogenic CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise. Each unit of CO2 given off by living organisms is reabsorbed by other organisms, thus holding CO2 levels relatively constant; that is at least until we started adding CO2 to the atmosphere from other sources.

The key difference between biogenic CO2 and CH4 and anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 is the latter throws the equilibrium out of balance. This results in higher levels of both gases and thus the predicted corresponding rise in temperature.


Da Cult of Human Causation of Global Warming will not believe it
By: E , Tue, 15 May 2007 20:26:47 GMT

The Cult of Human Causation of Global Warming will not believe it.
Nothing seems to shake them form there mantras. It's like the body snatchers or something. If you point out anything that goes against the dogma your a heretic. If you say it's mainly the Sun causing it and point out the ice capes on Mars are melting, your a corporate tool. If you point out that there is a 1000 plus year cycle of global warming, your a making it up. If you even say that the scientist who do say that humans play a part tell us that it is TINY in the grand scale, somehow your a devil polluter who won't take responsibility. If you say that You don't believe it and we should make no laws based on it, then your crazy, a fool or paid off by corporations. For my money when the scientist and accurately predict next years weather then I trust their 100 year forecast.


Focus on what's important
By: A. Guilloux , Tue, 15 May 2007 17:38:49 GMT

Perhaps the better question is not what they're smoking, but who is paying for this research (and subsequently, what they're smoking!)

Further, isn't the point to balance human impact with the nature our activities are dependent on? (as in don't blame the trees - how sick can you get)

The problem is that scientifc findings get APPLIED for some END. Not just a quaint fact of biology; not neutral. They are USED as a tool to justify human ends.


reply to Scientist stuns experts by saying trees worsen greenhouse effect
By: Thaier AlDualimi , Tue, 15 May 2007 15:10:13 GMT

ARE THEY REALLY EXPERTS! OR A BUNCH OR DRUNKEN WHAT SO CALLED SCIENTISTS! ANYONE GO AGANIST NATURE HE IS WRONG AND HIS WORK WILL BE PROVEN WRONG! I AM SURE THOSE WHAT SO CALLED SCIENTIST MUST BE SMOKING SOME THING!

GET REAL!!!!!



More Environment News click here
Follow The Earth Times
Subscribe to RSS Follow Earth Times on TwitterNews by email
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
 



 
Subscribe to free Earthtimes
News Alerts by Email Click here
For RSS Feeds Click here
or Create your own RSS

Add to Google Toolbar
Breaking News
Press Releases

 

He's a cross between a polar bear and a panda bear. He's a pander bear.
 

The Earth Times
News Category

© 2010 www.earthtimes.org, The Earth Times, All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy
Earth Times accept no responsibility or liability either directly or indirectly for views or opinions expressed in articles or comments.