Understanding Nature’s Seasonal “Breathing” and the Carbon Cycle in Northern High Latitudes

Tree in four different seasons
Tree in four different seasons: winter, spring, summer, fall.

How Seasonal Shifts in the Northern High Latitudes Impact Global Carbon Levels and Climate Stability

Climate change affects not only temperatures but also how ecosystems manage and cycle carbon dioxide (CO₂). Below we explore how rising temperatures and increasing CO₂ levels in Arctic and boreal regions—collectively called northern high latitudes (NHL)—are creating seasonal shifts in CO₂ levels. These changes impact our planet’s “carbon thermostat” and could intensify global warming if left unchecked. Let’s dive into the drivers behind these changes and how we can use this knowledge to shape a healthier future for our planet.

Defining Seasonal Cycle Amplitude (SCA)

Imagine Earth “breathing” with each season: in the spring and summer, trees and plants in the northern high latitudes absorb CO₂ during photosynthesis, much like an inhale. They use this CO₂ to grow, pulling it from the atmosphere and helping cool the planet. When autumn and winter arrive, these plants release CO₂ back into the air as they decompose—much like an exhale. This seasonal fluctuation in CO₂ is known as the Seasonal Cycle Amplitude (SCA).

Over the last several decades, the “inhale” in summer and “exhale” in winter has become more extreme. Plants are taking in even more CO₂ in warmer months and releasing more in cooler ones. This intensifying cycle is linked to higher CO₂ levels in the air and warming temperatures in the NHL, turning nature’s “breath” into a stronger force in the global carbon cycle.

Primary Drivers of SCA Increase

The increase in the seasonal CO₂ cycle, especially in the NHL, is due to several interacting forces. Here’s a look at the primary drivers behind this intensified “breathing”:

  • Warming Temperatures: Arctic areas are warming faster than the rest of the world, which means that plants have a longer growing season to capture CO₂. This extended period of photosynthesis results in more CO₂ being absorbed during warmer months.

  • CO₂ Fertilization: Plants use CO₂ as fuel to grow. With more CO₂ in the atmosphere, plants have more “food” available, which can increase their growth and further boost CO₂ absorption.

  • Increased Respiration: Warmer temperatures cause more CO₂ to be released back into the atmosphere as organic matter decomposes. This process, called respiration, also happens in winter due to permafrost thaw, releasing even more CO₂.

These factors combined are driving an intensified cycle, making the NHL a more powerful influence on our planet’s CO₂ levels.

Regional Influences

Different regions within the NHL—primarily the Arctic areas of North America and Eurasia—play unique roles in this changing cycle. Here’s how each contributes:

  • Eurasian Boreal Forests: These forests, especially in Siberia, are major players in absorbing CO₂. Warmer temperatures have enabled these forests to grow longer and stronger, contributing significantly to CO₂ uptake.

  • North American Boreal Forests: Although North America’s boreal forests are also absorbing CO₂, they are more sensitive to drought. This means they may absorb less CO₂ during dry years compared to Eurasia’s forests, which are often moister due to atmospheric changes.

Differences in forest types, moisture levels, and permafrost also mean that these regions respond to climate change in varied ways, affecting their role in the carbon cycle.

Projections for the Future

Looking ahead, the seasonal cycle of CO₂ is expected to continue intensifying in the NHL throughout the 21st century. Under high-emission scenarios, scientists project that by the end of the century, the NHL’s seasonal CO₂ cycle could be 75% stronger than it was in the 1980s.

What does this mean for global climate? This intensified “breathing” cycle means the NHL will continue to influence Earth’s “carbon thermostat” more dramatically. With higher CO₂ intake in the growing season and increased release during the colder months, this cycle could speed up the warming effects of greenhouse gases on our climate.

Recommendations for the Future

To better understand and manage these changes, scientists recommend several strategies to improve our knowledge of the carbon cycle in the NHL and inform climate policy:

  • Expand Monitoring Networks: Building more observation stations in under-monitored areas like tundras and Siberian forests will provide a clearer picture of CO₂ dynamics and seasonal trends.

  • Refine Climate Models: Current models should better account for factors like permafrost thaw and snow cover to accurately predict seasonal CO₂ fluctuations.

  • Support More Research: Understanding the impacts of landscape changes—such as forest growth, wildfires, and vegetation shifts—will help pinpoint how each factor influences CO₂ release and capture.

Taking these steps will help scientists and policymakers better gauge the impact of NHL ecosystems on the global carbon cycle and adapt climate policies accordingly.

Summing Up

Understanding the “breathing” cycles of the NHL offers a valuable key to shaping our climate future. By integrating more data from these regions, scientists can strengthen climate models, allowing for improved predictions and more precise climate targets. These insights also enhance policy decisions, as a better grasp of Arctic and boreal ecosystem dynamics can guide effective climate policies tailored to address the growing impact of CO₂ levels from these areas.

This seasonal “breathing” of Earth’s northern high latitudes reminds us that even the planet’s most remote areas have a crucial role in our shared climate future. By monitoring and adapting to these changes, we can contribute to a healthier, more balanced Earth.


Source: Liu, Z., Rogers, B. M., Keppel-Aleks, G., et al. (2024). Seasonal CO₂ amplitude in northern high latitudes. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 5(11), 802–817. https://www.umt.edu/news/2024/11/110824ntsg.php

Forest Whispers: Respecting Nature’s Kinship and the Hidden Dialogue of Trees

Hawai’ian Kahuna Insights: Ancient Wisdom of the Islands

With the damage caused by the Lahaina inferno fresh in our minds, we went searching for Hawai’ian wisdom. We came across a very wise Hawai’i Kūpuna Elder, Kimokeo Kapahulehua. In this TikTok post, he shares sage advice that can benefit humanity, and protect our biodiversity.

@wisdom.keepers

Kimokeo Kapahulehua – Kūpuna Elder, Hawai’i Like / Follow / Share✨ @wisdom.keepers Uncle Kimokeo is a kūpuna elder born on the island of Kaua’i. He is dedicated to preserving and sharing his culture and traditions through his foundation @kimokeofoundation. He is a member of many canoe teams both in Hawai’i and around the world. 🌀For full interviews, community page and more join our WK Community on Patreon 🌀 ✨LINK IN BIO✨ #aloha #kupuna #elder #hawaii #wisdomkeeper #canoe #laka #mahalo #wisdomkeepers #native #indigenous #areyoulistening Film: @Jeremy Whelehan Music: Ynglingtal feat. Jhon Montoya WKTeam: @motherwaters @grandchildofthemoon Project: @wisdom.keepers Respect, Love & Gratitude. Hoomaikai me ka mahalo 💚🌿

♬ 【No drums】 Emotional space-like epic … – MoppySound

You cannot go to the forest and just take a tree.
You have to ask Laka.
She’s the goddess of the forest. That’s her child.
Why do you want to take her child without permission?
And as the canoe maker, and as…
He has to go up and tell Laka
“I’m going to take one of your child[ren], and I’m going to make it into a canoe.”
Laka will be very happy when you take her child and make it into many lives and serve many, many people.
We cannot just take.
We need to give.
So if you take one of her child[ren], maybe you should go plant?
And give back Laka 40 children.
Take the seed of the plant and take it right back to the same location because her children would like to be born with the parents, and the great grandparents, and the great great grandparents.
Don’t take her child from the forest to another forest because they will all grow better with their family.
Like us.

—Kimokeo Kapahulehua, Kūpuna Elder

Elder’s Wisdom is Backed by Science

Science suggests that trees can “communicate” with each other through a complex network of mycorrhizal fungi. This underground network allows trees to exchange nutrients, send warning signals about environmental changes, and share resources with one another.

Dr. Suzanne Simard, a professor of forest ecology at the University of British Columbia, is one of the primary researchers in this area. In her studies, she found that trees can transfer carbon, water, and nutrients to other trees in times of need. She discovered that mother trees recognize their kin and send them more carbon below ground. They reduce their own root competition to make elbow room for their kids.

“When mother trees are injured or dying, they also send messages of wisdom on to the next generation of seedlings.”

—Dr. Suzanne Simard, Professor, RPF, Leader of The Mother Tree Project, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia

These findings validate the guidance shared by Kūpuna Elder, Kimokeo Kapahulehua.

Further, planting trees in non-native environments can have diverse ecological consequences. Research has shown that non-native trees can impact local ecosystems by:

  • Changing soil properties
  • Loss of humidity
  • Introduction of invasive alien species and disease
  • Negative impacts on biodiversity
  • Higher risks of adverse effects of fires and stores

When non-native tree species become invasive, they can outcompete, displace native species, alter habitat structures, and even change the soil properties and nutrient cycling.

It’s Time to Listen to the Wisdom

Whether we choose to listen to the wisdom of our elders or to science, climate disasters that are increasingly common underscore the urgency of listening and acting upon this wisdom.

Sources:

  • Simard, S.W., Beiler, K.J., Bingham, M.A., Deslippe, J.R., Philip, L.J., & Teste, F.P. (2012). Mycorrhizal networks: mechanisms, ecology and modelling. Fungal Biology Reviews, 26(1), 39-60.
  • Source: Brockerhoff, E.G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J.A., Quine, C.P., & Sayer, J. (2008). Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(5), 925-951.
Maui, Hawaii 023 Lahaina, Banyan Tree, Allie_Caulfield from Germany, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Maui, Hawaii 023 Lahaina, Banyan Tree, Allie_Caulfield from Germany, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons


The Supreme Court just shriveled federal protection for wetlands, leaving many of these valuable ecosystems at risk

Many ecologically important wetlands, like these in Kulm, N.D., lack surface connections to navigable waterways. USFWS Mountain-Prairie/Flickr, CC
Many ecologically important wetlands, like these in Kulm, N.D., lack surface connections to navigable waterways. USFWS Mountain-Prairie/Flickr, CC

By Albert C. Lin, The Conversation

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Sackett v. EPA that federal protection of wetlands encompasses only those wetlands that directly adjoin rivers, lakes and other bodies of water. This is an extremely narrow interpretation of the Clean Water Act that could expose many wetlands across the U.S. to filling and development.

Under this keystone environmental law, federal agencies take the lead in regulating water pollution, while state and local governments regulate land use. Wetlands are areas where land is wet for all or part of the year, so they straddle this division of authority.

Swamps, bogs, marshes and other wetlands provide valuable ecological services, such as filtering pollutants and soaking up floodwaters. Landowners must obtain permits to discharge dredged or fill material, such as dirt, sand or rock, in a protected wetland.

This can be time-consuming and expensive, which is why the Supreme Court’s ruling on May 25, 2023, will be of keen interest to developers, farmers and ranchers, along with conservationists and the agencies that administer the Clean Water Act – namely, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

For the last 45 years – and under eight different presidential administrations – the EPA and the Corps have required discharge permits in wetlands “adjacent” to water bodies, even if a dune, levee or other barrier separated the two. The Sackett decision upends that approach, leaving tens of millions of acres of wetlands at risk.


The Sackett case

Idaho residents Chantell and Mike Sackett own a parcel of land located 300 feet from Priest Lake, one of the state’s largest lakes. The parcel once was part of a large wetland complex. Today, even after the Sacketts cleared the lot, it still has some wetland characteristics, such as saturation and ponding in areas where soil was removed. Indeed, it is still hydrologically connected to the lake and neighboring wetlands by water that flows at a shallow depth underground.

In preparation to build a house, the Sacketts had fill material placed on the site without obtaining a Clean Water Act permit. The EPA issued an order in 2007 stating that the land contained wetlands subject to the law and requiring the Sacketts to restore the site. The Sacketts sued, arguing that their property was not a wetland.

In 2012, the Supreme Court held that the Sacketts had the right to challenge EPA’s order and sent the case back to the lower courts. After losing below on the merits, they returned to the Supreme Court with a suit asserting that their property was not federally protected. This claim in turn raised a broader question: What is the scope of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act?

What are ‘waters of the United States’?

The Clean Water Act regulates discharges of pollutants into “waters of the United States.” Lawful discharges may occur if a pollution source obtains a permit under either Section 404 of the act for dredged or fill material, or Section 402 for other pollutants.

The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the “waters of the United States” include not only navigable rivers and lakes, but also wetlands and waterways that are connected to navigable bodies of water. But many wetlands are not wet year-round, or are not connected at the surface to larger water systems. Still, they can have important ecological connections to larger water bodies.

In 2006, when the court last took up this issue, no majority was able to agree on how to define “waters of the United States.” Writing for a plurality of four justices in U.S. v. Rapanos, Justice Antonin Scalia defined the term narrowly to include only relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes. Waters of the U.S., he contended, should not include “ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”

Acknowledging that wetlands present a tricky line-drawing problem, Scalia proposed that the Clean Water Act should reach “only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own right.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy took a very different approach. “Waters of the U.S.,” he wrote, should be interpreted in light of the Clean Water Act’s objective of “restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

Accordingly, Kennedy argued, the Clean Water Act should cover wetlands that have a “significant nexus” with navigable waters – “if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’”

Neither Scalia’s nor Kennedy’s opinion attracted a majority, so lower courts were left to sort out which approach to follow. Most applied Kennedy’s significant nexus standard, while a few held that the Clean Water Act applies if either Kennedy’s standard or Scalia’s is satisfied.

Regulators have also struggled with this question. The Obama administration incorporated Kennedy’s “significant nexus” approach into a 2015 rule that followed an extensive rulemaking process and a comprehensive peer-reviewed scientific assessment. The Trump administration then replaced the 2015 rule with a rule of its own that largely adopted the Scalia approach.

The Biden administration responded with its own rule defining waters of the United States in terms of the presence of either a significant nexus or continuous surface connection. However, this rule was promptly embroiled in litigation and will require reconsideration in light of Sackett v. EPA.

The Sackett decision and its ramifications

The Sackett decision adopts Scalia’s approach from the 2006 Rapanos case. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared that “waters of the United States” includes only relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water, such as streams, oceans, rivers, lakes – and wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with and are indistinguishably part of such water bodies.

None of the nine justices adopted Kennedy’s 2006 “significant nexus” standard. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices disagreed with the majority’s “continuous surface connection” test. That test, Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence, is inconsistent with the text of the Clean Water Act, which extends coverage to “adjacent” wetlands – including those that are near or close to larger water bodies.

“Natural barriers such as berms and dunes do not block all water flow and are in fact evidence of a regular connection between a water and a wetland,” Kavanaugh explained. “By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.”

The majority’s ruling leaves little room for the EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers to issue new regulations that could protect wetlands more broadly.

The court’s requirement of a continuous surface connection means that federal protection may no longer apply to many areas that critically affect the water quality of U.S. rivers, lakes and oceans – including seasonal streams and wetlands that are near or intermittently connected to larger water bodies. It might also mean that construction of a road, levee or other barrier separating a wetland from other nearby waters could remove an area from federal protection.

Congress could amend the Clean Water Act to expressly provide that “waters of the United States” includes wetlands that the court has now stripped of federal protection. However, past efforts to legislate a definition have fizzled, and today’s closely divided Congress is unlikely to fare any better.

Whether states will fill the breach is questionable. Many states have not adopted regulatory protections for waters that are outside the scope of “waters of the United States.” In many instances, new legislation – and perhaps entirely new regulatory programs – will be needed.

Finally, a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas hints at potential future targets for the court’s conservative supermajority. Joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas suggested that the Clean Water Act, as well as other federal environmental statutes, lies beyond Congress’ authority to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, and could be vulnerable to constitutional challenges. In my view, Sackett v. EPA might be just one step toward the teardown of federal environmental law.

This is an update of an article originally published on Sept. 26, 2022.