Commercial growers use more than five times the carbon dioxide in air enriched to 0.20% CO2, 2,000 parts per million, with great
success. The gas is made with propane burning carbon dioxide
generators. Systems sold by manufacturers
claiming 30% increases in plant production often achieve much more.No special breathing equipment is needed by the nursery workers as carbon dioxide is not harmful to animal or human life until the concentration is over 15,000 parts per million, 1.5%. There are natural sources of CO2 that could produce huge amounts of CO2, but it would take a massive string of catastrophes to release such amounts of CO2 to our atmosphere.
CO2 Greenhouse History
In the 2006
fall issue of “Policy Review,” author Sylvan H. Wittwer wrote: “American
commercial greenhouses have used aerial carbon dioxide fertilization for
tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers, flower and foliage plants, and bedding plants for
at least 30 years. The benefits of this enrichment were first discovered by
nurserymen in Germany 100
years ago, and the practice is widely used in Sweden,
Denmark, Holland,
Germany, Australia, and Japan,
as well as the United States
and Canada.
Carbon dioxide enrichment is economical when greenhouse vents can be closed. It
is therefore used most often in winter in northern areas and in the southerly
latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere.”
This same article documents that
these systems are not usable in the summer in much of Europe
as the green houses get too hot when closed to keep the CO2 inside. Where they are watered
artificially this would be a good place to carbonate the water and apply CO2 directly to the roots, but that has yet to be
proposed so we include it in our patents.
Our Natrox™ system is ideal to carbonate greenhouse water with the addition of a small, simple generator and tanks capable of holding a few hundred pounds of pressure. This system will permit the use of CO2 in the summer when most American greenhouses have to be opened for cooling. If the gas in the tanks is pressurized to a few atmospheres there should be very little loss before the roots absorb the carbonate ions.
A New Eden?
Carbon dioxide concentration in the
Carboniferous Age (359,000,000 BC to 299,000,000 BC) forests of great antiquity
was about half again to twice that in modern greenhouses. Popularly known
as “an era of Eden,”
the forests, savannas and seas were much more lush and productive than ours
today, but modern environmentalists become hysterical when asked if this is
returning with positive effect.
Demonstrations with tented fruit
trees in atmospheres boosted to 700 ppm CO2
(0.070%) resulting in young trees two to three times the size of those growing
in normal atmospheres have been done many times in the US, England and
Europe. They are documented at the “CO2 Science” website: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
C3 and C4 Plants
There are three types of photosynthesis: C3, C4 and CAM. C3 photosynthesis is used by woody, round-leafed plants, which are 95% of all plants. C4 and CAM photosynthesis are found in drier, hotter land plants, grasses, sedges, grains, with CAM in cacti and bromeliads. It is a more efficient, process with the first intermediary compound including four carbon atoms where the "round leaves" start with three, hence "C3" and "C4."
Where C4 and CAM appear virtually identical they are rarely discussed separately. C4 and CAM are more efficient in water and energy use. The functional difference is that CAM plants have an "idle" function that saves energy and water and certainly selected over time in the many generations of green plant evolution.
During dry periods CAM stomata are closed during the day. CO2 captured overnight is stored in solution to be processed when the light returns. C4 plants photosynthesize faster under high heat and light conditions than C3 plants, but it is now clear that the increased rate is due to the higher operating temperatures and the simple fact that chemical reactions double in rate for every 10 degrees Celsius they are raised. The only really remarkable fact is that this was only recently confirmed and accepted.
The C3 class responds very well to additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when grown in greenhouses and we have demonstrated they respond well to soil sourced carbon dioxide.
The C4 class includes all grasses and grains. These are warmer area plants that showed about half the response to increased CO2 as did the C3 plants in early studies. New work has resulted in a dispute over this fact and there will appear to be confusion in the literature. We believe the rates will be found to be the same or greater for C4 plants when the scientists reach a conclusion.
In the online science
journal “CO2 Science,” Vol 6, Number 40,
1 October 2003, authors Keith Sherwood and Craig Idso present their study
showing a 53% increase in the dry weight biomass for tall Fescue (Festuca
arundacea) grown in a CO2 rich
atmosphere. They observed a 14% reduction in lignin, to us the
indigestible part of the plant.
Fescue is a C4 plant and the increase occurred when the grass was grown in an atmosphere with 700 ppm carbon dioxide; roughly double that of today’s air. In summation they wrote, “…therefore it can be concluded that atmospheric CO2 enrichment was a hugely positive factor, made better use of the applied nitrogen such that additional nitrogen had no effect.”
Their conclusion is important as C4 grass and grain crops have previously been treated in the literature as having a physiology less amenable to increased CO2 than C3 plants and perhaps less accepting of earth delivered CO2 as their root structures are spare compared to C3 plants. In this study the differences were non-existent. The chemistries of the two photosynthetic pathways show no thermodynamic reason why there should be a difference. This is very encouraging as C4 plants are responsible for all our grain.
Fescue is a C4 plant and the increase occurred when the grass was grown in an atmosphere with 700 ppm carbon dioxide; roughly double that of today’s air. In summation they wrote, “…therefore it can be concluded that atmospheric CO2 enrichment was a hugely positive factor, made better use of the applied nitrogen such that additional nitrogen had no effect.”
Their conclusion is important as C4 grass and grain crops have previously been treated in the literature as having a physiology less amenable to increased CO2 than C3 plants and perhaps less accepting of earth delivered CO2 as their root structures are spare compared to C3 plants. In this study the differences were non-existent. The chemistries of the two photosynthetic pathways show no thermodynamic reason why there should be a difference. This is very encouraging as C4 plants are responsible for all our grain.
CO2 Root Absorption
In spite of the fact that water is not an efficient medium
for the delivery of CO2 to soil it can be
used to confirm roots absorb carbon dioxide in water. And, we can see how green
plants respond to a new source of carbon.
In a simple experiment with two Dieffenbachia maculata plants we observed a greater growth rate and mass gain in the plant watered with beverage type soda water than with distilled water which was used as rain is naturally distilled water. Tap water has minerals and additions like chlorine.
In a simple experiment with two Dieffenbachia maculata plants we observed a greater growth rate and mass gain in the plant watered with beverage type soda water than with distilled water which was used as rain is naturally distilled water. Tap water has minerals and additions like chlorine.
The plant receiving distilled
water, while always viable, lost weight during the trial where the soda watered
plant gained weight over the term. And, the CO2
watered plant showed an increasing ability to accept and use CO2 soda water which it indicated with declining
transpiration rates as well as increasing weight.
In this 120 day demonstration Plant A is the black graph
above. It received distilled water. Plant B is the pink
graph. It received beverage type soda water. We determined when to
water by a simple finger test for dryness so the watering periods varied.
Periods ranged from four to six days extending, for example during an 11
day deep overcast, days 26 through 37. We wanted not to risk bacteria
infection with over-watering. At the end of the 120 days Plant
A had gained only three grams, but Plant B had gained 86 grams, 28.7 times the plain watered plant gain.
At the start of the trial pot A had a mass of 190 grams and pot B 130 grams. At each data spike pot A had received 60 grams of distilled water and pot B got 60 grams of beverage quality soda water the day before as there was significant runoff. After runoff about 40 grams of the water remained in each pot as shown in the data.
The greatest reductions in Plant B transpiration rates were seen immediately after each watering indicating a quick response to CO2 confirming the inverse relation between the aqueous CO2 concentration and stomata size. The losses were determined by the daily weighings. They included an average weight gain for plant B of about 0.72 grams/day. This could only be accounted for after the trial. Thus, the actual transpiration and evaporation daily loss was greater by that amount, but we at least had a track of the trend. Soda water loses CO2 so its’ effect declines every day between waterings.
At the start of the trial pot A had a mass of 190 grams and pot B 130 grams. At each data spike pot A had received 60 grams of distilled water and pot B got 60 grams of beverage quality soda water the day before as there was significant runoff. After runoff about 40 grams of the water remained in each pot as shown in the data.
The greatest reductions in Plant B transpiration rates were seen immediately after each watering indicating a quick response to CO2 confirming the inverse relation between the aqueous CO2 concentration and stomata size. The losses were determined by the daily weighings. They included an average weight gain for plant B of about 0.72 grams/day. This could only be accounted for after the trial. Thus, the actual transpiration and evaporation daily loss was greater by that amount, but we at least had a track of the trend. Soda water loses CO2 so its’ effect declines every day between waterings.
Outcomes
Reduced water demand is an inverse function of CO2 soil concentration, the more CO2 in the soil; the less water will be
used. And, green plants not only respond to carbon dioxide taken in
through their root systems, but appear increasingly accepting of it.
Plants can be optimized for this system by selection and genetic engineering
for fewer and smaller stomata.
When the mass loss is charted as “pot B X 100%/pot A” it was clear the carbonated watered plant lost significantly less water progressively. This is thought due to stomata behavior change in response to carbonated water where both pots were in the same circumstance. The only difference was the CO2 in the water for pot B. Both pots had exposed soil which contributed to water and CO2 loss. Transpiration difference was greater than that seen in this trial as the potting soil was very loose and open to the air thereby increasing water and CO2 loss from both pots. In the field with delivery at one foot or injection at three feet the gas will be capped by soil.
In the work we saw an astounding 2866% greater weight gain in the CO2 watered plant over the distilled water plant and reduced transpiration up to 50% on some days, but the mean difference was only 12% we believe due to evaporation from the soil. Selection, hybridization and genetic engineering can all reduce transpiration for adapting our agricultural plants to much drier environments than they can now tolerate.
In hydroponic greenhouses water consumption is not tracked. CO2 enhancement is in the air of the greenhouse. Water is in open contact with the roots in open containers subject to evaporation making water tracking impossible. We conclude that our plant’s water use reduction was due to CO2 root absorption causing the stomata to close when the plant received enough CO2 through the roots. This is consistent with the literature and our hypothesis that the primary function of the stomata is to exchange water vapor for carbon dioxide and not to cool the plant as has been the conventional concept.
When the mass loss is charted as “pot B X 100%/pot A” it was clear the carbonated watered plant lost significantly less water progressively. This is thought due to stomata behavior change in response to carbonated water where both pots were in the same circumstance. The only difference was the CO2 in the water for pot B. Both pots had exposed soil which contributed to water and CO2 loss. Transpiration difference was greater than that seen in this trial as the potting soil was very loose and open to the air thereby increasing water and CO2 loss from both pots. In the field with delivery at one foot or injection at three feet the gas will be capped by soil.
In the work we saw an astounding 2866% greater weight gain in the CO2 watered plant over the distilled water plant and reduced transpiration up to 50% on some days, but the mean difference was only 12% we believe due to evaporation from the soil. Selection, hybridization and genetic engineering can all reduce transpiration for adapting our agricultural plants to much drier environments than they can now tolerate.
In hydroponic greenhouses water consumption is not tracked. CO2 enhancement is in the air of the greenhouse. Water is in open contact with the roots in open containers subject to evaporation making water tracking impossible. We conclude that our plant’s water use reduction was due to CO2 root absorption causing the stomata to close when the plant received enough CO2 through the roots. This is consistent with the literature and our hypothesis that the primary function of the stomata is to exchange water vapor for carbon dioxide and not to cool the plant as has been the conventional concept.
Phase II
The original study ran from 11/12/06
to 03/12/07, 120 days which is the term of most plants grown for food,
fuel or fiber. We also thought our test plants were getting
"root bound" in the small pots. We put the pots aside to conduct a stress test.
We stopped the daily weighing, but continued to water the pots with distilled water only to pot A and soda water to pot B, but only once a week. During this test the water only plant grew larger leaves while the CO2 watered plant dropped its' large leaves making small replacements! The new leaves were only half size. We did not know what to make of this initially but continued watering the plants as during the study: Plant "A" got distilled water and Plant "B" received soda water.
On 6/16/07, 98 days after we stopped daily weighings we weighed the plants. Pot "A," water only, had only 115 grams having lost 78g while pot "B," soda water, weighed 165 grams for a loss of 51grams. The CO2 watered plant took the dry stress much better than the plain watered plant.
Through both phases, there was a net gain of 35 grams for the CO2 enriched plant as opposed to a net loss of 75 grams for the water only plant showing that plants are more robust in any circumstance receiving CO2 via their roots. The overall difference between the two plants is 110 grams (A’s loss + B's gain) over the 200 days of this test which is stunning.
The results are remarkable in several respects: (1) Plants adapt immediately and positively to root feeding of carbon dioxide. (2) The response to reduced transpiration is virtually intelligent as large leaves are dropped and replaced with small leaves. This occurred in plants that were initially grown on plain water. It suggests that plants starting with CO2 from the ground will have small leaves and low transpiration. We expect subsequent generations will make modified genetic codes for smaller leaf size reducing transpiration. Selecting seeds from these plants will give us new generations of low-transpiring stock. (3) Where the CO2 watered plant gained so much more weight we can conclude that larger leaves are not required for greater or better use of sunlight.
We stopped the daily weighing, but continued to water the pots with distilled water only to pot A and soda water to pot B, but only once a week. During this test the water only plant grew larger leaves while the CO2 watered plant dropped its' large leaves making small replacements! The new leaves were only half size. We did not know what to make of this initially but continued watering the plants as during the study: Plant "A" got distilled water and Plant "B" received soda water.
On 6/16/07, 98 days after we stopped daily weighings we weighed the plants. Pot "A," water only, had only 115 grams having lost 78g while pot "B," soda water, weighed 165 grams for a loss of 51grams. The CO2 watered plant took the dry stress much better than the plain watered plant.
Through both phases, there was a net gain of 35 grams for the CO2 enriched plant as opposed to a net loss of 75 grams for the water only plant showing that plants are more robust in any circumstance receiving CO2 via their roots. The overall difference between the two plants is 110 grams (A’s loss + B's gain) over the 200 days of this test which is stunning.
The results are remarkable in several respects: (1) Plants adapt immediately and positively to root feeding of carbon dioxide. (2) The response to reduced transpiration is virtually intelligent as large leaves are dropped and replaced with small leaves. This occurred in plants that were initially grown on plain water. It suggests that plants starting with CO2 from the ground will have small leaves and low transpiration. We expect subsequent generations will make modified genetic codes for smaller leaf size reducing transpiration. Selecting seeds from these plants will give us new generations of low-transpiring stock. (3) Where the CO2 watered plant gained so much more weight we can conclude that larger leaves are not required for greater or better use of sunlight.
Seen from above on 7/04/07 the plants show how the CO2 root fed plant adapted by growing smaller leaves while it
gained substantially more mass and transpired much less water.
CO2 Water
Patents
Carbon
dioxide in water meant to enhance plant growth is part of US Patents 2,943,419, 3,099,898, 4,133,671, 4,632,044, 4,675,165,
5,044,117 and 5,184,420. None of these patents define CO2 as a
fertilizer. All employ oxides of nitrogen made by internal combustion
engines on tractors or stationary water pumps. All were prepared long
before CO2 sequestration was an idea. In each case the clearly stated
objective is to make a nitrogenous fertilizer solution from internal combustion
exhaust with the role of carbon dioxide undefined.
As well, so little CO2 is soluble in hot water none of these include it as a component. At best 99.86% of all these solutions would be solvent at normal pressure, but other more soluble gases would displace whatever CO2 had gone into solution. Less than 0.145% efficiency in a delivery system is ridiculous. These patents cannot claim even that good a result as all use hot gases that won’t dissolve in the water heated to the temperatures of internal combustion exhaust gases.
As well, so little CO2 is soluble in hot water none of these include it as a component. At best 99.86% of all these solutions would be solvent at normal pressure, but other more soluble gases would displace whatever CO2 had gone into solution. Less than 0.145% efficiency in a delivery system is ridiculous. These patents cannot claim even that good a result as all use hot gases that won’t dissolve in the water heated to the temperatures of internal combustion exhaust gases.
In
each patent the engine exhaust gas is either first released to the air to be
recaptured, but released if the pressure rises more than one atmosphere in
the system as it certainly will in every case. Free release of such gases
will not be allowed under expected laws. We use captured carbon and carbon
dioxide as soil amendment and fertilizer respectively with both at ambient
temperature with no designed loss of either to the atmosphere.
A water delivery of one ton of carbon dioxide would require 182,188 gallons of cold water making 1,457,505 pounds of solution. This would not only be very expensive and wasteful, but drown plants and waste an increasingly expensive, critical, and hard to obtain resource. Fresh water is the coming crisis for mankind with 70% of it now consumed in transpiration to capture carbon from air, in a very inefficient system. We can make a better source in an act of true stewardship for the plants our planet and its’ people.
A water delivery of one ton of carbon dioxide would require 182,188 gallons of cold water making 1,457,505 pounds of solution. This would not only be very expensive and wasteful, but drown plants and waste an increasingly expensive, critical, and hard to obtain resource. Fresh water is the coming crisis for mankind with 70% of it now consumed in transpiration to capture carbon from air, in a very inefficient system. We can make a better source in an act of true stewardship for the plants our planet and its’ people.
No comments:
Post a Comment