Paper · 2023 · Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science

Dilemma between yield and quality: Multigenerational effect of elevated CO2 and nitrogen supply on wheat cultivars

Xizi Wang; Xin Yang; Shenglan Li; et al.

9
claims
27
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

Abstract Studying the long‐term effect of elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration ( e [CO 2 ]) on wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) over multiple generations has received increasing attention. Here, five wheat cultivars were grown under ambient CO 2 concentration ( a [CO 2 ], 400 ppm) and e [CO 2 ] (800 ppm), respectively, for three consecutive generations (G1 to G3) under two nitrogen (N) levels (1N and 2N). Compared to plants grown under a [CO 2 ], e [CO 2 ] increased shoot biomass and grain yield (GY) over three generations and the enhancement was greater in G3 than in G1. However, plant N concentration was lowered by e [CO 2 ] and the reduction was not mitigated by higher N supply. The carbon (C) concentration significantly increased in leaf and stem but decreased in grain, indicating an inhibited C translocation to grain under e [CO 2 ]. Most importantly, these negative impacts were exacerbated in G3. Concentrations of mineral nutrients in grain were significantly lowered by e [CO 2 ] with larger reduction in G3 than in G1 in some micronutrients such as Zn, Cu and Fe. These findings suggest that long‐term exposure to e [CO 2 ] sustained the positive effects on plant growth and production but aggravated the reduction of grain quality over multiple generations. Among the five cultivars, 325Jimai showed the greatest increase in shoot biomass and GY, and a greater sink capacity compared with the other cultivars, indicating its potential for future breeding strategies.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 increased shoot biomass over three generations, more strongly in G3 than G1.

Treatment
e [CO 2 ]e0
Outcome
shoot biomasse0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
greater in G3 than in G1e0
Comparator
a [CO 2 ]e0

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

“Compared to plants grown under a [CO 2 ], e [CO 2 ] increased shoot biomass and grain yield (GY) over three generations and the enhancement was greater in G3 than in G1.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–578 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 increased grain yield over three generations, more strongly in G3 than G1.

Treatment
e [CO 2 ]e0
Outcome
grain yield (GY)e0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
greater in G3 than in G1e0

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

“e [CO 2 ] increased shoot biomass and grain yield (GY) over three generations and the enhancement was greater in G3 than in G1.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 451–578 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 lowered plant nitrogen concentration despite higher nitrogen supply.

Treatment
e [CO 2 ]e0
Outcome
plant N concentratione0
Direction
lowerede0
Qualifier
not mitigated by higher N supplye0

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

“plant N concentration was lowered by e [CO 2 ] and the reduction was not mitigated by higher N supply.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 588–690 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 significantly increased leaf and stem carbon concentration.

Organ / stage
leaf and steme0
Outcome
carbon (C) concentratione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

“The carbon (C) concentration significantly increased in leaf and stem but decreased in grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 691–783 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 decreased grain carbon concentration.

Organ / stage
graine0
Outcome
carbon (C) concentratione0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

“The carbon (C) concentration significantly increased in leaf and stem but decreased in grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 691–783 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors infer inhibited carbon translocation to grain under elevated CO2, worse in G3.

Treatment
e [CO 2 ]e0
Outcome
C translocation to graine0
Direction
inhibitede0
Qualifier
exacerbated in G3e0

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

“indicating an inhibited C translocation to grain under e [CO 2 ]. Most importantly, these negative impacts were exacerbated in G3.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 785–915 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 significantly lowered grain mineral nutrients, with larger G3 reductions for zinc, copper and iron.

Treatment
e [CO 2 ]e0
Outcome
Concentrations of mineral nutrients in graine0
Direction
lowerede0
Qualifier
larger reduction in G3 than in G1 in some micronutrients such as Zn, Cu and Fee0

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

“Concentrations of mineral nutrients in grain were significantly lowered by e [CO 2 ] with larger reduction in G3 than in G1 in some micronutrients such as Zn, Cu and Fe.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 916–1085 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

325Jimai had the largest CO2-driven biomass and grain-yield increase among cultivars.

Material
325Jimaie0
Outcome
shoot biomass and GYe0
Direction
greatest increasee0

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

“325Jimai showed the greatest increase in shoot biomass and GY”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1307–1368 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

325Jimai had greater sink capacity than the other cultivars.

Material
325Jimaie0
Outcome
sink capacitye0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
other cultivarse0

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

“325Jimai showed the greatest increase in shoot biomass and GY, and a greater sink capacity compared with the other cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1307–1431 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑
t1

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–104 · show in text ↑

co2 · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

63 papers: 23 positive, 40 negative or no effect

39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. positive

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 papers →

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

145 papers: 124 positive, 21 negative or no effect

123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

141 papers more in this group

See all 145 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. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

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.