Plants DON'T Produce Greenhouse Gasses, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 8-5-2007 @ 06:52 PM by iori_komei

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]


reply posted on 12-5-2007 @ 04:45 AM by Long Lance
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....


reply posted on 12-5-2007 @ 08:09 PM by Heronumber0
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.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



The Human Seismograph Says: Big Earthquake Eminent
  Posted 17 days ago with 90 member flags
An unusual tree called Jaboticaba
  Posted 5 days ago with 77 member flags
Strange Sounds (UK) published on youtube on 5/13/2012
  Posted 13 days ago with 53 member flags
Pole Shift Data You Shouldn\'t Ignore
  Posted 10 days ago with 45 member flags
Indian state says it\'s OK now to kill tiger poachers on sight
  Posted 2 days ago with 40 member flags