Abstract
Abstract The combination of a future rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO 2 ]) and drought will significantly impact wheat production and quality. Genotype phenology is likely to play an essential role in such an effect. Yet, its response to elevated [CO 2 ] and drought has not been studied before. Here we conducted a temperature‐controlled glasshouse [CO 2 ] enrichment experiment in which two wheat cultivars with differing maturity timings and life cycle lengths were grown under ambient (aCO 2 approximately 400 μmol mol –1 ) and elevated (eCO 2 approximately 550 μmol mol –1 ) [CO 2 ]. The two cultivars, bred under dry and warm Mediterranean conditions, were well‐watered or exposed to drought at 40% pot holding capacity. We aimed to explore water × [CO 2 ] × genotype interaction in terms of phenology, physiology, and agronomic trait response. Our results show that eCO 2 had a significant effect on plants grown under drought. eCO 2 boosted the booting stage of the late‐maturing genotype (cv. Ruta), thereby prolonging its booting‐to‐anthesis period by approximately 3 days ( p < 0.05) while unaffecting the phenological timing of the early‐maturing genotype (cv. Zahir). The prolonged period resulted in a much higher carbon assimilation rate, particularly during pre‐anthesis (+87% for Ruta vs. +22% for Zahir under eCO 2 ). Surprisingly, there was no eCO 2 effect on transpiration rate and grain protein content in both cultivars and under both water conditions. The higher photosynthesis (and transpiration efficiency) of Ruta was not translated into higher aboveground biomass or grain yield, whereas both cultivars showed a similar increase of approximately 20% in these two traits at eCO 2 under drought. Overall, Zahir, the cultivar that responded the least to eCO 2, had a more efficient source‐to‐sink balance with a lower sink limitation than Ruta. The complex water × [CO 2 ] × genotype interaction found in this study implies that future projections should account for multifactor interactive effects in modeling wheat response to future climate.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 prolonged the booting-to-anthesis period of Ruta under drought by about three days.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Material
- cv. Rutae0
- Treatment
- eCO 2e0
- Outcome
- booting‐to‐anthesis periode0
- Direction
- prolonginge0
- Value
- approximately 3 dayse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“eCO 2 boosted the booting stage of the late‐maturing genotype (cv. Ruta), thereby prolonging its booting‐to‐anthesis period by approximately 3 days ( p < 0.05)”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 did not alter phenological timing of Zahir.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- cv. Zahire0
- Treatment
- eCO 2e1
- Outcome
- phenological timinge0
- Direction
- unaffectinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“while unaffecting the phenological timing of the early‐maturing genotype (cv. Zahir)”
t0“wheat”
e1“eCO 2 boosted the booting stage of the late‐maturing genotype (cv. Ruta), thereby prolonging its booting‐to‐anthesis period by approximately 3 days ( p < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Preanthesis carbon assimilation increased 87% for Ruta under elevated CO2.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Rutae0
- Organ / stage
- pre‐anthesise0
- Treatment
- eCO 2e0
- Outcome
- carbon assimilation ratee0
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- +87%e0
- Comparator
- Zahire0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“carbon assimilation rate, particularly during pre‐anthesis (+87% for Ruta vs. +22% for Zahir under eCO 2 )”
t0“wheat”
e1“both cultivars showed a similar increase of approximately 20% in these two traits at eCO 2 under drought”
Claim · model-written summary
Preanthesis carbon assimilation increased 22% for Zahir under elevated CO2.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Zahire0
- Treatment
- eCO 2e0
- Outcome
- carbon assimilation ratee0
- Value
- +22%e0
- Comparator
- Rutae0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“carbon assimilation rate, particularly during pre‐anthesis (+87% for Ruta vs. +22% for Zahir under eCO 2 )”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 had no effect on transpiration rate in either cultivar under either water condition.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- eCO 2e0
- Outcome
- transpiration ratee0
- Direction
- no eCO 2 effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no eCO 2 effect on transpiration rate and grain protein content in both cultivars and under both water conditions”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 had no effect on grain protein content in either cultivar under either water condition.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- eCO 2e0
- Outcome
- grain protein contente0
- Direction
- no eCO 2 effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no eCO 2 effect on transpiration rate and grain protein content in both cultivars and under both water conditions”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher photosynthesis and transpiration efficiency in Ruta did not yield higher aboveground biomass.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Rutae0
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse0
- Direction
- not translated into highere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher photosynthesis (and transpiration efficiency) of Ruta was not translated into higher aboveground biomass or grain yield”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher photosynthesis and transpiration efficiency in Ruta did not yield higher grain yield.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Rutae0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- not translated into highere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher photosynthesis (and transpiration efficiency) of Ruta was not translated into higher aboveground biomass or grain yield”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Both cultivars increased aboveground biomass by approximately 20% under elevated CO2 and drought.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- eCO 2 under droughte0
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse1
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- approximately 20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both cultivars showed a similar increase of approximately 20% in these two traits at eCO 2 under drought”
t0“wheat”
e1“The higher photosynthesis (and transpiration efficiency) of Ruta was not translated into higher aboveground biomass or grain yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Both cultivars increased grain yield by approximately 20% under elevated CO2 and drought.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- eCO 2 under droughte0
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- approximately 20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both cultivars showed a similar increase of approximately 20% in these two traits at eCO 2 under drought”
t0“wheat”
e1“The higher photosynthesis (and transpiration efficiency) of Ruta was not translated into higher aboveground biomass or grain yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Zahir had more efficient source-to-sink balance and lower sink limitation than Ruta.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Zahire0
- Outcome
- source‐to‐sink balance with a lower sink limitatione0
- Comparator
- Rutae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Zahir, the cultivar that responded the least to eCO 2, had a more efficient source‐to‐sink balance with a lower sink limitation than Ruta”
t0“wheat”
The same questions in other papers
co2 · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →co2 · quality: phytochemicals · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →co2 · physiology: gas exchange · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →co2 · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
68 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 papers →co2 · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
141 papers more in this group
See all 145 papers →co2 · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
173 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
199 papers more in this group
See all 203 papers →drought · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 343 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
427 papers more in this group
See all 431 papers →drought · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 537 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
628 papers more in this group
See all 632 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.