Warming world sends plants uphill

gerky

bbc wrote:

BBC NEWS
Warming world sends plants uphill

Climate change has caused plants to seek cooler conditions at higher altitudes, scientists suggest.

A study of 171 forest species in mountain ranges of western Europe found that many plants had climbed an average of 29 metres each decade.

Smaller species such as ferns, which had shorter reproduction cycles, were the quickest to relocate, the researchers said.

The findings have been published in the Science journal.

"This is the first time that it has been shown that climate change has already had a significant effect on plant species over a wide range of temperatures during the past century," explained Jonathan Lenoir, the paper's lead author.

Climate 'fingerprints'

Professor Lenoir, an ecologist at AgroParisTech, France, said the team wanted to establish whether "fingerprints of climate change were already apparent in ordinary ecosystems".

In order to do this, the team of French and Chilean researchers compared the distribution of forest species between 1905 and 1985 with their distribution between 1986 and 2005.

"This work was possible because of two large-scale, long-term databases that have recorded the presence of forest species since 1905," he explained.

This may imply profound changes in the composition and structure of plant communities and animal species that depend upon them

Professor Jean-Claude Gegout,
AgroParisTech

"We used 171 species commonly found over French mountains, which are part of Mediterranean, temperature and mountainous forest ecosystems between 0m to 2,600m above sea level.

"We found a significant change in species' altitudinal distribution towards higher elevation of about 29 metres per decade.

"Out of the 171 species, most are shifting upwards to recover temperature conditions that are optimal for their development and reproduction."

Co-author Jean-Claude Gegout added that different types of plants displayed different responses to the temperature changes.

"Long-life plants, such as trees and shrubs, did not show significant shifts, whereas short-life species, such as herbs, showed a strong upward shift," he said.

"Herbs, by having a short life cycle, have had several generations during a decade that allows for a faster dispersal of seeds.

"By contrast, trees have had just one or two generations during the same period of time, which may affect their ability to track the climate changes."

Professor Gegout said that this suggested that long living woody plant species, such as trees, were likely to be more threatened by climate change than herb species like grasses.

"This may imply profound changes in the composition and structure of plant communities and animal species that depend upon them."

The researchers concluded by saying that further studies were needed to understand the full magnitude of the changes, and to assess the impact on the ecosystems' long-term future.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7477279.stm

Published: 2008/06/27 13:37:21 GMT

.

Jimkel

Wouldnt worry about it, the media tends hype these things up, good news is plants will benifit from all the CO2 we produce today, which accounts for roughly 2% of the worlds CO2. The fact of the matter is, the world is actually heading for a cooldown anyway, just like in the 17th century and the plants have survived this before and they will again.

gerky

The media aren't hyping it up their just reporting what was published in a scientific journal.
Sorry if this comes across as rude but it would appear you don't know how the natural world works.

Jimkel

I'm a biology student specialising in Marine Biology I'm sure I know more about the natural world then you.

Look if you choose to believe everything the media feeds you then feel free, my posts are aimed at free thinking logical people that like to come to their own conclusions based on the facts presented by science, not by the media, I presented some facts, if you want to verify anything ask a real scientist.

gerky

Well then as a biology student you'll know that a lot of plants exist in a fairly fragile state as regards their growing environment and even though increased rates of co2 may increase their growth it doesn't mean a plant will survive a changed environment.

You can't predict how each species will cope with the effect, increased growth from co2 also means an increased need for other resources, and that may be alright with some cultivated plants but how do wild plants cope with this? especially in a changing environment.

jimkel wrote:

Look if you choose to believe everything the media feeds you then feel free, my posts are aimed at free thinking logical people that like to come to their own conclusions based on the facts presented by science, not by the media, I presented some facts, if you want to verify anything ask a real scientist.

Ah I see so the whole media are in cahoots with scientific journals and yet your right because your a biology student, that makes sound scientific sense.

Jimkel

PLants have so far survived, ice age's, meteor strikes causing nuclear winter (The one the wiped out the dino's), my Grandads gardening lol but you see my point the climate is supposed to be changeable. It's natural. Believe if or not mankind is not exempt from evolution. But hey look I subscribe to my views you subscribe to yours. Let's not get into one of those ridiculus boards.ie fueds, lets agree to disagree....;)

gerky

You talk about plants as if they're just one single species, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of plants have become extinct or are nearing extinction, in past history most of these occurred through natural phases but more recently most have occurred through human environmental damage of one kind or other.

I fully agree the climate is changeable to some extent but I believe that the more recent change is mostly from artificial human influence and most legitimate research agrees with that.

But as you said lets agree to disagree, difference of opinion is whats drive a good section of the world.

bonkey

Jimkel wrote: »

PLants have so far survived, ice age's, meteor strikes causing nuclear winter (The one the wiped out the dino's), my Grandads gardening lol but you see my point

No, I don't. No-one serious has suggested that human-effect-driven climate change will destroy all life. They haven't even suggested it will destroy all human life. All they have suggested is that it will cause massive problems which could be otherwise avoided.

Jimkel

I believe there is little we as a species can do now to avoid the suns effect on this planet. Redusing CO2 may help change the way our climates going in a small way, but what can we do about water vapour?

bonkey

Jimkel wrote: »

but what can we do about water vapour?

What do we need to do about water-vapour?

Jimkel

bonkey wrote: »

What do we need to do about water-vapour?

My point is that water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas, existing in amounts that dwarf CO2 and therefore all this CO2 hype is a load of my proverbials, CO2 is a Trace element that lags temperature increase, it doesn't come before it. As the Earth heats CO2 is released not the other way around. Point - Climate change is natural, unavoidable and is caused by the natural world. We may account for > .02 % of global climate change, but thats it. There are bigger fish to fry in the world right now, like overpopulation, which is caused mostly by undereducation, And the fact that the oil is running out. Fact - The climate will be different in 100 years from now, just like it was 100 years ago, Thats always been the way, nothing is static in Nature, we either learn do adapt or we dissapear, it's called evolution.