Paper · 2007 · New Phytologist

Elevated CO2 increases nitrogen rhizodeposition and microbial immobilization of root‐derived nitrogen

Marie‐Anne De Graaff; Johan Six; Chris Van Kessel

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
77
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

With this study, we aimed to determine how elevated CO(2) affects rhizodeposition and the cycling of rhizodeposited nitrogen (N) in the soil under C(3) and C(4) plants. In addition, we examined how cultivated genotypes of wheat (Triticum turgidum) and maize (Zea mays) responded to elevated CO(2) in comparison with their wild relatives. By constructing an N-transfer experiment we could directly assess cycling of the rhizodeposited N and trace the fate of rhizodeposited N in the soil and in receiver plants. Biomass production, rhizodeposition and cycling of root-borne N in maize genotypes were not affected by elevated CO(2). Elevated CO(2) stimulated above- and below-ground biomass production of the wheat genotypes on average by 38%, and increased rhizodeposition and immobilization of root-derived N on average by 30%. Concurrently, elevated CO(2) reduced mineral (15)N and re-uptake of the root-derived N by 50% in wheat. This study shows that elevated CO(2) may enhance N limitation by increasing N rhizodeposition and subsequent immobilization of the root-derived N.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 did not affect maize biomass, rhizodeposition or root nitrogen cycling.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
elevated CO(2)e0
Outcome
Biomass production, rhizodeposition and cycling of root-borne Ne0
Direction
not affectede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Biomass production, rhizodeposition and cycling of root-borne N in maize genotypes were not affected by elevated CO(2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–629 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 increased wheat above and below ground biomass by an average 38%.

Treatment
Elevated CO(2)e0
Outcome
above- and below-ground biomass productione0
Direction
stimulatede0
Value
38%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Elevated CO(2) stimulated above- and below-ground biomass production of the wheat genotypes on average by 38%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 631–740 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 increased wheat rhizodeposition and immobilization of root derived nitrogen by an average 30%.

Treatment
Elevated CO(2)e1
Outcome
rhizodeposition and immobilization of root-derived Ne0
Direction
increasede0
Value
30%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased rhizodeposition and immobilization of root-derived N on average by 30%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–826 · show in text ↑
e1

“Elevated CO(2) stimulated above- and below-ground biomass production of the wheat genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 631–722 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 reduced mineral 15N and wheat reuptake of root derived nitrogen by 50%.

Treatment
elevated CO(2)e0
Outcome
mineral (15)N and re-uptake of the root-derived Ne0
Direction
reducede0
Value
50%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“elevated CO(2) reduced mineral (15)N and re-uptake of the root-derived N by 50% in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 842–930 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors infer elevated CO2 may enhance nitrogen limitation through rhizodeposition and immobilization.

Treatment
elevated CO(2)e0
Outcome
N limitatione0
Direction
enhancee0
Qualifier
increasing N rhizodeposition and subsequent immobilization of the root-derived Ne0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“elevated CO(2) may enhance N limitation by increasing N rhizodeposition and subsequent immobilization of the root-derived N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 954–1077 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 707–722 · show in text ↑

co2 · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

52 papers: 41 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

48 papers more in this group

See all 52 papers →

co2 · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

203 papers: 174 positive, 29 negative or no effect

173 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

199 papers more in this group

See all 203 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.