Abstract
Abstract Increased atmospheric CO 2 and consequent increases in temperature are two prominent features of climate change, a major challenge to crops. Here, our objectives were to determine: (1) the responses of sugarcane during the first 90 days of elevated CO 2 (ECO 2 ) and elevated temperature (ETem), both individually and together, and (2) the genotypic variation of these responses. Eight varieties were grown both in open‐top chambers in a factorial combination of ambient/ECO 2 concentrations (344–351/777–779 ppm) and ambient/ETem (34.9–35.6/36.6–38.4°C) and in open fields. Significant treatment × variety interaction effects were observed on leaf net photosynthetic rate (A n ), stomatal conductance (g s ), transpiration rate (E l ), and instantaneous transpiration efficiency (T E ). In most varieties, ECO 2 alone did not affect A n, but the combination of ECO 2 and ETem decreased A n . ECO 2 decreased g s and E l while increasing T E in all varieties. These effects were amplified when ETem was combined with ECO 2 . ETem alone had variable effects on A n and g s depending on variety, while it increased E l and did not affect T E in a majority of varieties. Germination, tillering and stem diameter were not affected by treatments and did not show varietal variation. Leaf water potential, chlorophyll (spad), leaf area, and aboveground dry weight per plant showed varietal variations but were not affected by treatments. The variable responses to ETem and the significant genotypic variation to ECO 2 and elevated temperature (ETem) observed in this work, both individually and together, demonstrate a considerable scope to breed sugarcane varieties for a future high‐CO 2 and warmer climate.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment responses of photosynthesis, conductance, transpiration and transpiration efficiency varied significantly among sugarcane varieties.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- treatment × varietye0
- Outcome
- leaf net photosynthetic rate (A n ), stomatal conductance (g s ), transpiration rate (E l ), and instantaneous transpiration efficiency (T E )e0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Significant treatment × variety interaction effects were observed on leaf net photosynthetic rate (A n ), stomatal conductance (g s ), transpiration rate (E l ), and instantaneous transpiration efficiency (T E ).”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 alone did not affect photosynthesis in most sugarcane varieties.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- ECO 2 alonee0
- Outcome
- A ne0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- most varietiese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“In most varieties, ECO 2 alone did not affect A n, but the combination of ECO 2 and ETem decreased A n .”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined elevated CO2 and temperature decreased photosynthesis in most sugarcane varieties.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- combination of ECO 2 and ETeme0
- Outcome
- A ne0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- most varietiese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“In most varieties, ECO 2 alone did not affect A n, but the combination of ECO 2 and ETem decreased A n .”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 decreased stomatal conductance in all sugarcane varieties.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“ECO 2 decreased g s and E l while increasing T E in all varieties.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 decreased transpiration in all sugarcane varieties.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“ECO 2 decreased g s and E l while increasing T E in all varieties.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 increased transpiration efficiency in all sugarcane varieties.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“ECO 2 decreased g s and E l while increasing T E in all varieties.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated temperature amplified the elevated CO2 effects on gas exchange.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“These effects were amplified when ETem was combined with ECO 2 .”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated temperature alone had variety-dependent effects on photosynthesis and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- ETem alonee0
- Outcome
- A n and g se0
- Direction
- variablee0
- Qualifier
- depending on varietye0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“ETem alone had variable effects on A n and g s depending on variety”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated temperature alone increased transpiration in most varieties.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“while it increased E l and did not affect T E in a majority of varieties.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated temperature alone did not affect transpiration efficiency in most varieties.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- ite0
- Outcome
- T Ee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- a majority of varietiese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“while it increased E l and did not affect T E in a majority of varieties.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments did not affect germination, tillering or stem diameter, which showed no varietal variation.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Germination, tillering and stem diametere0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Germination, tillering and stem diameter were not affected by treatments and did not show varietal variation.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf water potential, chlorophyll, leaf area and aboveground dry weight varied among sugarcane varieties.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Material
- varietal variationse0
- Outcome
- Leaf water potential, chlorophyll (spad), leaf area, and aboveground dry weight per plante0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Leaf water potential, chlorophyll (spad), leaf area, and aboveground dry weight per plant showed varietal variations but were not affected by treatments.”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments did not affect leaf water potential, chlorophyll, leaf area or aboveground dry weight.
- Taxon
- sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Leaf water potential, chlorophyll (spad), leaf area, and aboveground dry weight per plante0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Leaf water potential, chlorophyll (spad), leaf area, and aboveground dry weight per plant showed varietal variations but were not affected by treatments.”
t0“sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
co2 · physiology: photosynthesis · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
heat · physiology: photosynthesis · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
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.