Paper · 2006 · New Phytologist

Photosynthetic stimulation under long‐term CO2 enrichment and fertilization is sustained across a closed Populus canopy profile (EUROFACE)

Marion Liberloo; Ingmar Tulva; Olaf Raïm; et al.

7
claims
12
verbatim quotes
74
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The long-term response of leaf photosynthesis to rising CO2 concentrations [CO2] depends on biochemical and morphological feedbacks. Additionally, responses to elevated [CO2] might depend on the nutrient availability and the light environment, affecting the net carbon uptake of a forest stand. After 6 yr of exposure to free-air CO2 enrichment (EUROFACE) during two rotation cycles (with fertilization during the second cycle), profiles of light, leaf characteristics and photosynthetic parameters were measured in the closed canopy of a poplar (Populus) short-rotation coppice. Net photosynthetic rate (A(growth)) was 49% higher in poplars grown in elevated [CO2], independently of the canopy position. Jmax significantly increased (15%), whereas leaf carboxylation capacity (Vcmax), leaf nitrogen (N(a)) and chlorophyll (Chl(a)) were unaffected in elevated [CO2]. Leaf mass per unit area (LMA) increased in the upper canopy. Fertilization created more leaves in the top of the crown. These results suggest that the photosynthetic stimulation by elevated [CO2] in a closed-canopy poplar coppice might be sustained in the long term. The absence of any down-regulation, given a sufficient sink capacity and nutrient availability, provides more carbon for growth and storage in this bioenergy plantation.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 raised net photosynthetic rate by 49% throughout the poplar canopy.

Taxon
poplarsPopuluse0
Treatment
elevated [CO2]e0
Outcome
Net photosynthetic ratee0
Direction
highere0
Value
49%e0
Qualifier
independently of the canopy positione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Populus
Populus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Net photosynthetic rate (A(growth)) was 49% higher in poplars grown in elevated [CO2], independently of the canopy position.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 580–704 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 significantly increased Jmax by 15%.

Taxon
PopulusPopulust0
Treatment
elevated [CO2]e0
Outcome
Jmaxe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
15%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Populus
Populus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Jmax significantly increased (15%), whereas leaf carboxylation capacity (Vcmax), leaf nitrogen (N(a)) and chlorophyll (Chl(a)) were unaffected in elevated [CO2].”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 705–866 · show in text ↑
t0

“Populus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–112 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 did not affect leaf carboxylation capacity, leaf nitrogen, or chlorophyll.

Taxon
PopulusPopulust0
Treatment
elevated [CO2]e0
Outcome
leaf carboxylation capacity (Vcmax), leaf nitrogen (N(a)) and chlorophyll (Chl(a))e0
Direction
unaffectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Populus
Populus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“leaf carboxylation capacity (Vcmax), leaf nitrogen (N(a)) and chlorophyll (Chl(a)) were unaffected in elevated [CO2]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–865 · show in text ↑
t0

“Populus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–112 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf mass per unit area increased in the upper canopy.

Taxon
PopulusPopulust0
Organ / stage
upper canopye0
Outcome
Leaf mass per unit area (LMA)e0
Direction
increasede0

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

Populus
Populus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Leaf mass per unit area (LMA) increased in the upper canopy.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 867–927 · show in text ↑
t0

“Populus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–112 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization produced more leaves at the top of the poplar crown.

Taxon
PopulusPopulust0
Organ / stage
top of the crowne0
Treatment
Fertilizatione0
Outcome
leavese0
Direction
moree0

Not reportedComparator

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

Populus
Populus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fertilization created more leaves in the top of the crown.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 928–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“Populus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–112 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors infer that photosynthetic stimulation by elevated CO2 may persist long term in closed-canopy poplar coppice.

Taxon
poplarPopuluse0
Treatment
elevated [CO2]e0
Outcome
photosynthetic stimulatione0
Qualifier
might be sustained in the long terme0

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

Populus
Populus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“photosynthetic stimulation by elevated [CO2] in a closed-canopy poplar coppice might be sustained in the long term”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1018–1132 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors infer that absence of down-regulation, with sufficient sink capacity and nutrients, provides more carbon for growth and storage.

Taxon
PopulusPopulust0
Outcome
carbon for growth and storagee0
Direction
moree0
Qualifier
given a sufficient sink capacity and nutrient availabilitye0

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

Populus
Populus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The absence of any down-regulation, given a sufficient sink capacity and nutrient availability, provides more carbon for growth and storage in this bioenergy plantation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1134–1303 · show in text ↑
t0

“Populus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–112 · show in text ↑

fertilization · growth · Populus (poplar)Results differ

46 papers: 36 positive, 10 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

42 papers more in this group

See all 46 papers →

co2 · physiology: photosynthesis · Populus (poplar)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 10 positive, 1 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 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.