The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant reproduction under elevated CO2 conditions: a meta‐analysis of reports on 79 crop and wild species
Abstract
Summary: Reproductive traits are key characteristics for predicting the response of communities and ecosystems to global change. We used meta‐analysis to integrate data on eight reproductive traits from 159 CO 2 enrichment papers that provided information on 79 species. Across all species, CO 2 enrichment (500–800 µl l −1 ) resulted in more flowers (+19%), more fruits (+18%), more seeds (+16%), greater individual seed mass (+4%), greater total seed mass (+25%), and lower seed nitrogen concentration, (N) (−14%). Crops and undomesticated (wild) species did not differ in total mass response to elevated CO 2 (+31%), but crops allocated more mass to reproduction and produced more fruits (+28% vs +4%) and seeds (+21% vs +4%) than did wild species when grown at high CO 2 . Seed [N] was not affected by high CO 2 concentrations in legumes, but declined significantly in most nonlegumes. Our results provide robust estimates of average plant reproductive responses to CO 2 enrichment and demonstrate important differences among individual taxa and among functional groups. In particular, crops were more responsive to elevated CO 2 than were wild species. These differences and the substantial decline in seed [N] in many species have broad implications for the functioning of future natural and agro‐ecosystems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704
Self-citationSTITT, M., & KRAPP, A. (1999) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.1999.00386.x · Cited by 1,044
Cited by
Ainsworth, E. A., & Long, S. P. (2005) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x · Cited by 3,624
RISING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE: Plants FACE the Future
Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Rogers, A., & Ort, D. R. (2004) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141610 · Cited by 1,715
Molecular regulation of seed and fruit set
Ruan, Y.-L., Patrick, J. W., Bouzayen, M., Osorio, S., & Fernie, A. R. (2012) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2012.06.005 · Cited by 438
Climate Change: Resetting Plant-Insect Interactions
DeLucia, E. H., Nabity, P. D., Zavala, J. A., & Berenbaum, M. R. (2012) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.112.204750 · Cited by 375
Gilmour, M. I., Jaakkola, M. S., London, S. J., Nel, A. E., & Rogers, C. A. (2006) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.8380 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Jablonski, L. M., Wang, X., & Curtis, P. S.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-09-12
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-26
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2095646961
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Plant reproduction under elevated CO2 conditions: a meta‐analysis of reports on 79 crop and wild species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00494.x
- The paper
- Jablonski, L. M., Wang, X., & Curtis, P. S. (2002). Plant reproduction under elevated CO2 conditions: a meta‐analysis of reports on 79 crop and wild species. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00494.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.