English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-08-09 03:34:32 · 3 answers · asked by rohit s 1 in Environment

3 answers

I believe you are talking about the hypothesis of carbon dioxide fertilization, not some sort of direct injection of CO2 into soils.

CO2 fertilization is a hypothesis that states that anthropogenic CO2 could actually "fertilize" plants, causing greater plant growth, thus offsetting any excess CO2 humans might produce.

Plants require CO2 to produce glucose, right? Well, the CO2 fertilization hypothesis states that more CO2 in the atmosphere equals more "food" for plants. More food for plants, equals more plant growth, which in turn means a greater set of CO2 "respirators."

Most scientists think this hypothesis is no good. There have been experiments that show any added benefit from excess CO2 is short-lived and that the increased plant production does not match the excess CO2 in the air.

Does this help?

2006-08-09 03:56:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Carbon dioxide fixation is a part of the carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle is an atmospheric cycle where the carbon moves from its largest reservoirs (sediments, rocks, and the ocean), through the atmosphere, through food webs, and back to the reservoirs.

Carbon dioxide fixation is the first step of ligjt-independent reactions. Enzyme action affixes carbon (from carbon dioxide) to Ribulose biphosphate (RuBP) or to some other compound for entry into the Calvin-Benson cycle.

2006-08-12 11:52:25 · answer #2 · answered by fieldworking 6 · 0 0

Introducing CO2 into a basic soil in order to fix the nutrients.

2006-08-09 03:47:16 · answer #3 · answered by ag_iitkgp 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers