Lightning Kills Way More Trees Than Anyone Thought, New Research Suggests
Researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) have developed a computer model to provide what they claim to be the first estimate of lightning's impact on forest ecosystems around the world. According to their study, lightning affects forests more than previously thought. Specifically, they suggest that around 320 million trees die each year from lightning strikes, not including the trees that die in lightning-induced wildfires.
'Lightning is an important yet often overlooked disturbance agent in forest ecosystems,' the researchers explained in the study, published last month in the journal Global Change Biology.
To make their estimate, they integrated observational data and global lightning patterns into a well-known global vegetation simulation. The computer model indicates that trees killed by lightning represent 2.1% to 2.9% of all plant biomass loss annually. While plants and trees absorb CO2 through photosynthesis during their lifetimes, they release a significant amount of it back into the atmosphere when they die and decay. As such, these figures are crucial to better understanding Earth's carbon cycling.
With the combined model, 'we're now able not only to estimate how many trees die from lightning strikes annually, but also to identify the regions most affected and assess the implications for global carbon storage and forest structure,' Andreas Krause, lead author of the study and researcher at the Chair of Land Surface-Atmosphere Interactions, explained in a TUM statement.
The biomass decay caused by the lightning-killed trees is estimated to emit between 770 million and 1.09 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. According to the researchers, this is surprisingly high. For comparison, living plants burned in wildfires release around 1.26 billion tons of CO2 every year. Both of these figures, however, are dwarfed by the total wildfires CO2 emissions (including the combustion of deadwood and soil material), which is approximately 5.85 billion tons per year.
'Most climate models project an increase in lightning frequency in the coming decades, so it's worth paying closer attention to this largely overlooked disturbance,' said Krause. 'Currently, lightning-induced tree mortality is highest in tropical regions. However, models suggest that lightning frequency will increase primarily in middle- and high-latitude regions, meaning that lightning mortality could also become more relevant in temperate and boreal forests.'
The researchers argue that ecosystem models need to account for lightning mortality in order to better predict vegetation dynamics. Interestingly, though, not all trees die after getting struck by lightning—in fact, some kinda like it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Ph.D. Candidates Are Not Overqualified, They Are Underrated
'You're overqualified for this role.' It's a phrase far too familiar to Ph.D. holders navigating the job market. Despite their deep expertise, many find that corporate America often misunderstands, underestimates, or overlooks the value they can bring to businesses, especially when the preference leans toward more traditional credentials, such as the M.B.A. In an era of accelerated technological disruption and knowledge-based industries, companies can no longer afford to ignore the untapped potential of Ph.D. talent. Ph.D. is short for Doctor of Philosophy. Its roots trace back to 18th-century Germany, where the Prussian model of education was designed to train individuals to produce new knowledge, not just practice or regurgitate current knowledge. The U.S. adopted this model in the 19th and 20th centuries, and today the Ph.D. is a common offering at many universities, focused on pushing the boundaries of what we know. What separates a Ph.D. from other graduate degrees isn't just subject matter expertise, it's the process of their studies, which entails a long and rigorous journey. On average, earning a Ph.D. takes about five years, and can extend up to eleven. Candidates conduct original research, publish findings, and defend their dissertations in front of experts in their fields. The result is a scholar trained to solve problems no one has solved before. These are exactly the kinds of thinkers businesses need when thinking about new innovations and approaches to challenges. Historically, Ph.D.s were seen as a pipeline to the professoriate. But that narrative is changing. Nearly half (48%) of all Ph.D. recipients now pursue careers in industry, while just 33% remain in academia. In STEM fields, that number is even higher. Over half of Ph.D.s in science and engineering fields enter industry, and for engineers, it's closer to 79%. These shifts aren't just preferences—they reflect evolving professional ambitions. And there's a new variable reshaping the Ph.D. talent pool: government layoffs. Recent cuts in federal agencies have displaced over 51,000 federal workers. The result is a wave of highly trained Ph.D. researchers with policy insight, scientific rigor, and real-world experience entering the private job market. However, future supply of researchers may be a risk. Research universities (where most are trained) rely on government grants and have had to scale back due to federal cuts, meaning less funds for Ph.D. students. For employers, this is a talent acquisition opportunity hiding in plain sight. These professionals bring expertise in data analysis, project management, and scientific reasoning while working within tight budgets (i.e. government). These are skills that are increasingly vital as companies across industries seek to become more innovative and tech-forward. Whether in product design, Research & Development (R&D), sustainability, or strategy, Ph.D. holders can help companies not just compete, but innovate. Yet too often, Ph.D. applicants are dismissed as 'too academic' or 'overqualified.' This stems from outdated assumptions and an incomplete understanding of what Ph.D. training entails. Yes, Ph.D.s are highly educated—but many also bring real-world experience: managing budgets, writing grants, collaborating across institutions, and mentoring diverse teams. These are not your thought-of ivory tower theorists; they are applied thinkers ready to drive change. There's another aspect worth noting. Ph.D. pathways are difficult to access, especially for students without generational wealth or academic lineage. While federal numbers on graduate completion are limited, some research purports that only 56% of Ph.D. students actually complete their 3% of first-generation undergraduate students ever enroll in a Ph.D. program. That's a missed opportunity for both social mobility and corporate innovation. To tap into this hidden talent, employers must take action. That means building or supporting recruitment pipelines—like the McNair Scholars Program, Científico Latino, The Ph.D. Project, and Leadership Brainery. These initiatives are working to ensure that students from even the most challenging backgrounds can become the next generation of knowledge creators and innovators. If innovation is the lifeblood of 21st-century business, then Ph.D. talent is part of the circulatory system. These individuals know how to ask the right questions and pursue rigorous answers, skills that go far beyond academic settings. Companies that recognize and embrace this kind of thinking will be better positioned to lead in an increasingly complex and competitive world. So the next time a résumé crosses your desk bearing the letters 'Ph.D.,' don't ask whether the candidate is overqualified. Ask whether your company is ready to think bigger. Help us widen the pipeline. Support Leadership Brainery in creating equitable pathways to graduate education. Donate today! Interested in engaging with us or have an idea for a future topic? Submit this brief form.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Discovered a Way to Reverse Time—and Possibly Erase Mistakes
Here's what you'll learn when you read this story: In the physical world, time marches in one direction, but things aren't so straight forward in the quantum realm. Researchers have discovered that it's possible to speed up, slow down, or reverse the flow of time in a quantum system. This isn't exactly time travel, but is instead implementing or reverting to different quantum states from different points in time. In the subatomic universe of quantum physics, you can achieve things considered impossible in our flesh-and-blood physical world. Things like superposition, entanglement, and even teleportation all seem possible when things go quantum. Now, scientists from the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW) and University of Vienna are adding a kind of time travel to the list. In a series of papers published on preprint servers and in various online journals (including Optica, arXiv, and Quantum), researchers including ÖAW's Miguel Navascués and University of Vienna's Philip Walther explain the possibility of speeding up, slowing down, and even reversing the flow of time within a quantum system. Navascués compares the phenomenon to different movie-watching experiences. 'In a theater [classical physics], a movie is projected from beginning to end, regardless of what the audience wants,' he told the Spanish-language newspaper El País. 'But at home [the quantum world], we have a remote control to manipulate the movie. We can rewind to a previous scene or skip several scenes ahead.' The researchers achieved this by 'evolving' a single photon as it passes through a crystal. Using an experimental device called a 'quantum switch,' the single photon of light returns to its previous state before it ever makes the journey. In a way, this is less Doc Brown-style time travel and more about reverting or otherwise altering the states of quantum particles, or 'time translation' as Navascués described in 2020. However, this isn't exactly like a rewind button on your TV because usually, viewers can see how things got from plot point A to B—just sped up and in reverse. In quantum mechanics, however, simply observing a system causes it to change, which makes it impossible to track a system's progress through time. Crucially, these rewinding protocols still work because they can be performed without knowing what the changes were or its 'internal dynamics,' according to the scientists. And this quantum time machine doesn't just go one direction—Navascués said they've also hit upon a method for going forward in evolutionary time as well. He told El País: 'To make a system age 10 years in one year, you must get the other nine years from somewhere. In a year-long experiment with 10 systems, you can steal one year from each of the first nine systems and give them all to the tenth. At the end of the year, the tenth system will have aged 10 years; the other nine will remain the same as when the experiment began.' Sadly, these sci-fi findings in the quantum world can't be sized up to send humans backward and forward in time, because a single human represents a mind-boggling amount of information to 'rejuvenate'—in fact, the scientists estimate it would take millions of years to pull it off for just one second. But for the teams at ÖAW and the University of Vienna, the point isn't jetting off to the distant future, but the ability to increase the capability of quantum processors by arming them with the possibility of reversing errors in a system. After all, if life had a rewind button, wouldn't you use it? Get the Issue Get the Issue Get the Issue Get the Issue Get the Issue Get the Issue Get the IssueGet the Issue Get the Issue You Might Also Like The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life? Solve the daily Crossword
Gizmodo
5 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Diet Swap Study Reveals How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Derail Weight Loss
In case you needed more incentive to cut down on ultra-processed foods, a new diet swap study out today reveals that people experienced greater weight loss while eating minimally processed foods than they did when they ate a nutritionally similar, ultra-processed diet. In a six-month trial led by scientists at University College London, study participants were assigned one of the two diet regimes to follow for eight weeks, and then took a four week break before swapping to the other diet for another eight weeks. Participants lost more weight while eating the minimally processed diet than the ultra-processed one; they also shed more unhealthy fat. The findings, published Monday in Nature Medicine, suggest that, among other things, ultra-processed diets are especially good at stoking people's food cravings, the researchers said. Ultra-Processed Foods Have Disturbing Health Effects, Large Review Finds Although there is some debate over what constitutes an ultra-processed food, there are generally considered products or ingredients that have gone through high levels of industrialized processing, like breakfast sausages, candy, or sodas. There is a growing mountain of evidence that suggests a diet rich in ultra-processed foods is less healthy overall than a diet made up of mostly whole foods, and that ultra-processed foods may raise the risk of certain diseases. Most of this research, however, only shows a correlation between ultra-processed diets and poorer health outcomes, and not a direct cause-and-effect link. Clinical trials can provide stronger evidence, but they're notoriously difficult to do in the world of nutrition science for many reasons, particularly funding, the researchers said. A New Diet Study Confirms Your Worst Suspicions About Ultra-Processed Foods The results highlight the importance of following government dietary guidelines, Dicken said. But the study also indicates that people who want to lose weight may see the most benefit from sticking to minimally processed foods. As to why the ultra-processed foods are worse for dieting, the researchers have their educated guesses. Ultra-processed foods tend to have more appealing textures and artificially boosted flavors, which often means they are softer or easier to eat, and tastier. Their appearance and packaging might also make them more visually appealing to potential customers. Interestingly, the volunteers in this study reported that both diets were equally satisfying to eat on average, but they also reported having better control over their cravings while on the minimally processed diet. Dicken noted that the researchers weren't able to directly test these potential explanations in this trial, though, so more research is needed to know for sure. The team has already launched their next study, which is testing out a behavioral support program to reduce people's intake of ultra-processed foods. But Dicken cautioned that it will take widespread societal shifts, not individual scolding, to change our collective diets for the better.
