"The Great Nutrient Collapse": how atmospheric CO2 affects plant nutrient composition.

timtam163

"Within the category of plants known as “C3”―which includes approximately 95 percent of plant species on earth, including ones we eat like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes―elevated CO2 has been shown to drive down important minerals like calcium, potassium, zinc and iron. The data we have, which look at how plants would respond to the kind of CO2 concentrations we may see in our lifetimes, show these important minerals drop by 8 percent, on average. The same conditions have been shown to drive down the protein content of C3 crops, in some cases significantly, with wheat and rice dropping 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively."

Basically our food chain is changing, and we have to figure out how to account for this. The paper goes on to connect lower nutrient density (and higher carbohydrate density) of plants grown in high-CO2 conditions with the worldwide obesity epidemic.

Link here.

Thoughts?

HeidiCooksSupper

I do think we've underestimated the effects increased CO2 will have on the earth and humanity in general. Right now, the headlines are devoted to sea level rise and stronger storms but issues like effect on the food supply really need attention. Unfortunately, at least in the US, that attention is often politicized and short term, looking at economic issues and biological issues from a standpoint that is short-sighted and conservative (with a small c -- in other words, less amenable to change).

Arguably, we should all stop eating beef and other foods that have such great environmental cost for digestible calories produced. We should consider the carbon footprint of everything we produce and consume. Such actions would cause immediate discomfort to all of us. Worse to beef producers, oil industry workers, etc. The long term outcome of ignoring such issues and continuing as we have could result in the end of man on earth.

Meanwhile, like many of us, I keep my beef consumption to a minimum, drive a low emissions car, and stick my head in the sand hoping someone will do something to save us.

LiveLoveFitFab

I've stopped eating meat for this exact reason.

I dive, a lot. I'm aware of the changes in climate and the affect on our oceans because I see the coral, I do dives in 34 degree water (it's not supposed to be that warm!!!) I see hurricanes that are strengthened by this warm water. I see it with my own eyes, most people don't - so they don't care.

I can't do a lot to reduce my carbon foot print, but I'm working on doing my little bit. It's not going to be enough to help, but I can die knowing I tried. I take my kids diving so they can tell their kids about the reefs so that when they are all gone they will be remembered. I don't eat seafood, ever. It's not sustainable. Unless it's lionfish, I do eat that.

When I travel, I go for months, not a week here and there, it's less carbon. I traded my truck (which I miss) for a small honda; I'm saving for a Tesla. I plan on putting solar panels on my house in the next few years.

If everyone did just one of those things I mentioned above, the world would be a better place. But it's too hard, right? Better just let someone else do it.

French_Peasant

Very interesting.

I suspect we are also seeing a decline in quality with industrially-produced foods that are grown in depleted soil cranked full of NPK fertilizer (but nothing that would provide micronutrients, including those we don't even know about yet). As an organic gardener who has spent years building an awesome compost-based soil, I see a huge difference in the quality of food I am growing in my own yard, vs. the food that I grow on a very "thin" (sandy) soil, vs. what I get in the grocery store. I also see this with the free-range pastured eggs my friends hook me up with (insanely flavorful, insanely orange yolks across chicken breeds) vs. even the "organic cage-free" eggs in the grocery.

I thought of this with the reference to the goldenrod--if the goldenrod is being grown in a field stripped of nutrients and topsoil, vs. a field that would have been heavily manured and have most of its topsoil in place in 1842, then there are going to be huge differences in nutrients simply due to the quality of soil.

A particular year's climate is going to have a huge impact as well. Things will grow differently in a cool, rainy year vs. a hot, wet year, so how would they control for those conditions.

Also, genetically, there is not just "goldenrod" or even a particular species of goldenrod. There are going to be constant changes over 175 years in which phenotypes adapt to their local conditions, as those local conditions shift and change. They would have to account for the constantly-changing soil and genetics, insect/animal/disease stressors (which can boost nutrient quality do to chemical response against attacks), etc. in order to isolate that the atmosphere is the culprit.

On the other hand, if they can establish a similar trendline over 175 years across multiple plant species and locations (including a place that hasn't been touched, like arctic tundra, if they have those samples), that provides more compelling evidence.

Regardless, I do agree that faster is not better for plant nutrients. The soil is crucial, and I think a good, rich soil that does not boost plant growth too much would help offset the CO2 impacts. Unfortunately there are not many farmers using traditional agrarian methods, which are cost-and time-intensive and result in a lower (if higher-quality) yield.

I do think the photo of him strewing bags of table sugar across a pile of vegetables might indicate some potential bias to his methodology. It seems like an odd bit of sensationalist propaganda for a scientist.

Also, and maybe I am going out on a limb here, but I think that people a) shoving a lot of food into their faces and b) sitting on their butts accounts for the world wide obesity epidemic. That's just nonsense. In a way it is the fault of the Industrial Revolution because we have tractors and combines and insane yields and industrial scale fertilizers and trucks and trains and container ships and refrigeration, but to blame it on higher carbs present in whole fruits, whole grains, and whole vegetables is silliness.

timtam163

French_Peasant wrote: »

Very interesting.

I suspect we are also seeing a decline in quality with industrially-produced foods that are grown in depleted soil cranked full of NPK fertilizer (but nothing that would provide micronutrients, including those we don't even know about yet). As an organic gardener who has spent years building an awesome compost-based soil, I see a huge difference in the quality of food I am growing in my own yard, vs. the food that I grow on a very "thin" (sandy) soil, vs. what I get in the grocery store. I also see this with the free-range pastured eggs my friends hook me up with (insanely flavorful, insanely orange yolks across chicken breeds) vs. even the "organic cage-free" eggs in the grocery.

I thought of this with the reference to the goldenrod--if the goldenrod is being grown in a field stripped of nutrients and topsoil, vs. a field that would have been heavily manured and have most of its topsoil in place in 1842, then there are going to be huge differences in nutrients simply due to the quality of soil.

A particular year's climate is going to have a huge impact as well. Things will grow differently in a cool, rainy year vs. a hot, wet year, so how would they control for those conditions.

Also, genetically, there is not just "goldenrod" or even a particular species of goldenrod. There are going to be constant changes over 175 years in which phenotypes adapt to their local conditions, as those local conditions shift and change. They would have to account for the constantly-changing soil and genetics, insect/animal/disease stressors (which can boost nutrient quality do to chemical response against attacks), etc. in order to isolate that the atmosphere is the culprit.

On the other hand, if they can establish a similar trendline over 175 years across multiple plant species and locations (including a place that hasn't been touched, like arctic tundra, if they have those samples), that provides more compelling evidence.

Regardless, I do agree that faster is not better for plant nutrients. The soil is crucial, and I think a good, rich soil that does not boost plant growth too much would help offset the CO2 impacts. Unfortunately there are not many farmers using traditional agrarian methods, which are cost-and time-intensive and result in a lower (if higher-quality) yield.

I do think the photo of him strewing bags of table sugar across a pile of vegetables might indicate some potential bias to his methodology. It seems like an odd bit of sensationalist propaganda for a scientist.

Also, and maybe I am going out on a limb here, but I think that people a) shoving a lot of food into their faces and b) sitting on their butts accounts for the world wide obesity epidemic. That's just nonsense. In a way it is the fault of the Industrial Revolution because we have tractors and combines and insane yields and industrial scale fertilizers and trucks and trains and container ships and refrigeration, but to blame it on higher carbs present in whole fruits, whole grains, and whole vegetables is silliness.

It looks like the evidence is very preliminary, and the article is a call for more intersectional research funding. But I've heard the argument before, that the lower nutrient density of food from overworked soil contributes to an overall nutrient poor food system which promotes overeating. But that's really hard to gauge in isolation of all the stuff that happens to said food from field to mouth.

Obviously nobody can say that CO2 levels are the only thing that affect crop yield; but if we know something about how CO2 levels affect crops independently of other factors, it can still be a meaningful factor to know. The evidence seems compelling that CO2 concentration alone affects crop quality; but of course more research is needed.

And yes that photo of him covering veggies in sugar is downright silly.

Also I'm personally super concerned about the potential decrease in caffeine content of coffee...

HeidiCooksSupper

Research funding is definitely an issue. The deepest pockets rest with business and industry and therefore much research is undertaken to further the aims of business and industry. This is natural but not necessarily the best for humanity. The interests of agri-business and the food industry are aimed at things like crop yield, transportability, and tastes that drive consumption (saltiness and sweetness). There is less money behind interests like micronutrients and health benefits. Government and foundation funded efforts are not wholly immune to the desires of business and industry -- let alone politics.

Many a researcher would like to study something if they could get it funded but they bend their research agenda to fit what it is possible to study because of funding. So, in a democracy, the solution is to educate the public and encourage them to exert influence that is greater than the influence of commercial money. A tall order.

MichelleSilverleaf

French_Peasant wrote: »

Very interesting.

Regardless, I do agree that faster is not better for plant nutrients. The soil is crucial, and I think a good, rich soil that does not boost plant growth too much would help offset the CO2 impacts. Unfortunately there are not many farmers using traditional agrarian methods, which are cost-and time-intensive and result in a lower (if higher-quality) yield.

Because farmers have better tech and better methods these days. And there are too many people to feed these days to afford a low yield, unless you're an organic farmer.