Plants DON'T Produce Greenhouse Gasses

Plants are not a significant source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, according to new research that casts doubt on the results of an earlier study.

The new study, published on April 27 in the online edition of the journal New Phytologist, involved plant biologists who also grew maize, basil and wheat along with other grew plants in carbon dioxide that contained a heavier form of carbon, carbon-13, instead of the more abundant carbon-12-this "labeling" meant that any methane emitted by plants would contain carbon-13 and so would be easier to detect.

Both groups tried to rule out any emission from bacteria that live in oxygen-free pockets in the soil-in the new study, the biologists grew their plants hydroponically, or without soil; the chemists in the first study also tried to detect methane from the soil itself and found none.

The biologists who authored the newer study found no significant emissions of methane from the plants they grew, even when they looked at a large amount of plants.

The 2006 study was unable to pinpoint the mechanism plants might use to produce methane, and there is no known biological method that could do this, said lead author of the new study, Tom Dueck of Plant Research International in the The Netherlands, in a telephone interview.


SOURCE:
LiveScience.com

This really does'nt surprise me.

I really had trouble believing the original study when it was released last
year, so this more or less backs my thinking.

It's an interesting fact to note to, the new study was much more
controlled, and a rare form of carbon that would be more detectable,
and found the original study to be wrong.


Comments, Opinions?

[edit on 5/8/2007 by iori_komei]

If I read it correctly, they didn't get any methane emissions from the LIVE plants, correct?

But when they die, and rot, what do you get then? Some of the carbon will stay in the soil in the form of organics but I suspect the large part will return to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and methane.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
If I read it correctly, they didn't get any methane emissions from the LIVE plants, correct?

But when they die, and rot, what do you get then? Some of the carbon will stay in the soil in the form of organics but I suspect the large part will return to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and methane.

They are not saying that a plant, after it dies will not produce some gasses, what they are
saying is they did a more precise one that disproves a recent study that was saying live plants
were producing great amounts of Methane.

The original experiment and findings didn't seem to be in a very controled environment. The soils must have contaminated the research. I wonder why they didn't go hydroponic to begin with?

So CO2 is not a greenhouse gas now?...

Plants release CO2 at night, which is one of the reason why people shouldn't have a forest in their rooms at night.

I have a few plants, but I don't keep them in my room at night because they do absorb oxygen and release CO2 during the night.

Originally posted by Muaddib
So CO2 is not a greenhouse gas now?...

Plants release CO2 at night, which is one of the reason why people shouldn't have a forest in their rooms at night.

I have a few plants, but I don't keep them in my room at night because they do absorb oxygen and release CO2 during the night.

The study deals with Methane, not CO2.

Some aquatic plants, rice for example, emit alcohol.

How big of greenhouse gas problem is alcohol?

Originally posted by dave_54
Some aquatic plants, rice for example, emit alcohol.

How big of greenhouse gas problem is alcohol?

Consumption of alcohol certainly increases emmisions of hot air.

Only last week one of my friends became convinced, that he would be able to kill an alsation guard dog if attacked. The subject was much debated and we later decided that he was an idiot and returned home, leaving him to search for a guard dog.

Regardless, alcohol was to blame

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
If I read it correctly, they didn't get any methane emissions from the LIVE plants, correct?

i think it's about

www.sciencenews.org...

i wouldn't brush their findings off like this, because they did in fact use hydroponics

The team's experiments took place in sealed chambers with a well-oxygenated atmosphere, so it's unlikely that bacteria that thrive without oxygen generated the methane, says Keppler. Experiments on plants that were grown in water rather than in soil also resulted in methane emissions, another strong sign that the gas came from the plants and not soil microbes.

i'm honestly undecided on the issue, i admit that i used the original finding in GW threads, though. i would really appreciate an explanation of the failure mechanism which led to the mistake, because i understand too well how today's irrational focus on greenhouse gas emissions could tempt people to trim the results (works both ways i assume).

in fact, using a more complicated setup including C-13 and all that could easily skew the results, because the most abundant variety is of course C-12 and even though it's unlikely to make a difference, introducing any new variable into a test doesn't make things any easier. better diagnostics beat special cases anyday, imho.

PS: let's see how this pans out, people don't like being refuted and will therefore try to validate their results. if they can't do that, well....

I have read through the link for the original experiment and the scientists were very certain that the methane was being given off by dead AND live plants and that the metabolic pathways increased production of methane at higher temperatures or to sunlight, implying (to me at any rate) enzymes are involved.

Living plants growing at their normal temperatures generated even larger quantities of methane, as much as 370 ng per gram of plant tissue per hour. Methane emission more than tripled when the plants, either living or dead, were exposed to sunlight.

The team's experiments took place in sealed chambers with a well-oxygenated atmosphere, so it's unlikely that bacteria that thrive without oxygen generated the methane, says Keppler. Experiments on plants that were grown in water rather than in soil also resulted in methane emissions, another strong sign that the gas came from the plants and not soil microbes.

I think the radioactive carbon is not likely to affect the reactions in the new experiments. It is almost indistinguishable from Carbon-12 and likely to be recognised by the plant metabolism.

Are the plants used in the two studies the same? Because it is possible that some plants are more likely to produce volatile organic substances than others. I have heard of photosynthetic algae giving off hydrogen as a by-product of photosynthesis so why not methane? I think that the new study needs to replicate the old study and change one variable only.

Originally posted by iori_komei


The study deals with Methane, not CO2.

The article claims plants do not produce "GHGs". CO2 is a greenhouse gas, plants do produce CO2, hence the article is wrong.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
The article claims plants do not produce "GHGs". CO2 is a greenhouse gas, plants do produce CO2, hence the article is wrong.

The article is dealing with the production of Methane, not COS, it does not claim that plants do not produce CO2, they are saying that another study that said plants produce a large amount of Methane is wrong, and that plants do not produce it at all.

The first sentence really does say it all.

Plants are not a significant source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, according to new research that casts doubt on the results of an earlier study.

Originally posted by iori_komei

The article is dealing with the production of Methane, not COS, it does not claim that plants do not produce CO2, they are saying that another study that said plants produce a large amount of Methane is wrong, and that plants do not produce it at all.

The first sentence really does say it all.

The name of the article says it all

Plants Don't Produce Greenhouse Gas, New Study Finds

They should have named it "Plants Don't Produce as much Methane as Previously Thought"... Instead they claim "Plants don't produce Greenhouse Gas, News Study Finds" which leads people to believe that no GHG is produced by plants and that is simply not true.

A lie is a lie whichever way you want to look at it.

This leads me to believe that whoever thought about the title at "Livescience.com" either lied knowingly, or didn't even bother to read what the study was all about.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by Muaddib]