Will Frenzied Plant Growth Help Solve Global Warming?

Devil-may-care and out-of-control plants.

A couple of reports in the science news this week seem to suggest that one way to cope with global climate change may be unbridled plant growth.

One has to do with the discovery of a cellular regulator for the synthesis of cellulose by plant cells.

The other involves plants’ natural responses to environmental stresses.

In each case, the scientists suggest that blocking, or at least inhibiting, these natural governers on plant growth (biomass production) might aid in coping with global warming.

Cellulose Biosynthesis: Pull out all the stops!

The authors of a recent report of the discovery of a shut-off switch for plant cellulose biosynthesis claim that repressing this molecular inhibitor of cellulose synthesis in domesticated plants could enhance the amount of overall biomass production.

Using cellulosic biomass as source material for commercial biofuel production is currently not practical (see here, for example).

However, much research is being conducted to improve the production of cellulosic ethanol. Brief summaries of some recent advances can be found here, here, and here.

Another way that increased plant cellulose biosynthesis – and thus increased plant biomass production – may aid in efforts to mitigate global warming is through biomass conversion to biochar.

As briefly discussed here and here, biochar may be a way to sequester atmospheric CO₂ in the soil for long periods of time. This is accomplished by converting the biomass plants have produced via photosynthesis into charcoal, which persists in the soil for many years. However, other scientists have provided evidence that conflicts with this presumption. So, the jury may still be out on biochar.

What if crop plants couldn’t care less about climate change?

Professor Ottoline Leyser of the University of York as recently suggested that breeding more “cavalier” crop plants could possibly be a way to counter some of the effects of climate change on agricultural production.

Briefly, the idea is to dampen the plants’ responses to mildly adverse environmental conditions, such as above normal temperatures or below normal rainfall. Since such normal responses often include suppression of plant growth, such “cavalier” plants would possibly be more productive in the face of adverse climate changes.

I wonder, however, whether removing such responses to plant stress would render these “cavalier” plants more susceptible to harsh conditions?

Bottom line: Basic research into the cellular mechanisms involved in plant growth yields new insights, and thus new ideas, in preparing for the challenges to agriculture imposed by global climate change.