co2 · Physiology: gas exchange · Triticum aestivum (wheat)
32 claims from these papers; 2 citations between them.
Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.
How these papers cite each other
2 citations between these papers: 0 on the same side, 2 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 14
Elevated CO2 Improves the Growth of Wheat Under Salinity · 1993
- positive
- no effect
Growth and water use of wheat under present and future levels of CO2 · 1993
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Benefits of increasing transpiration efficiency in wheat under elevated CO2 for rainfed regions · 2018
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Elevated CO2 enhanced water use efficiency of wheat to progressive drought stress but not on maize · 2022
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 14
Studies in Stomatal Behaviour · 1954
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
The optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for the growth of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) · 2015
- negative
- no effect
- negative
Response of aestivum and durum wheat varieties to elevated CO2 and temperature under OTC condition · 2023
- negative
- no effect
- negative
Impact of Plant Developmental Stage on Photosynthetic Acclimation to Elevated [CO2] in Durum Wheat · 2025
- negative
- no effect
Future heatwave conditions inhibit CO2-induced stomatal closure in wheat · 2026
- negative
- negative
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.