The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

The bigger role of trees in global carbon cycling

Photo of large tree trunk with canopy filling the background.
Photo by Jan Huber on Unsplash.

Researcher Patrik Vestin writes in a " news and views " article in Nature that the woody surfaces of trees may take up methane on a scale of global importance. This is a missing piece in the estimation of global methane budgets, and hence in climate models. Future research should involve not just stems and trunks, but also leaves and small branches to get a fuller picture.

Forests play a crucial role in absorbing not only CO2 but also methane, according to a new study in Nature. Field studies reveal that the woody surfaces of upland trees are a substantial global sink for methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Trees influence soil methane flux through its influence on soil properties and hydrology and have been shown to emit methane from the lower part of their trunks, but the new study suggest that methane is being absorbed higher up on the stem, possibly due to methane absorbing bacteria. A key limitation of the new study studies is that the methane measurements were taken mainly below 2 m, when it is highly likely that the uptake is different farther up the tree trunks.

Future research should focus on measuring methane uptake higher up the trees, from trunks, smaller branches, shoots, and leaves, and in various environments. Long-term, high-frequency measurements will help reveal patterns in tree methane flux and enhance our understanding of trees' role in the global methane budget.

This discovery of stems taking up methane, could help resolve the discrepancy in global methane emission estimates. In such estimates, results are about 30% higher in bottom-up models based on data driven modelling, compared to top-down models based on atmospheric measurements and inverse modelling. This suggests either an overestimation of emissions or an underestimation of sinks in the bottom-up estimates, argues Patrik Vestin.

This text is a review from the news and views article “Forests don’t just absorb CO2 — they also take up methane” by Patrik Vestin. Read the full article in Nature

Nature 631, 744-745 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02270-3