Cited by 164Plant responses to elevated CO2Climate change impacts on agricultureCrop Yield and Soil Fertility

Decreasing, not increasing, leaf area will raise crop yields under global atmospheric change.

Open access
Srinivasan, Venkatraman, Kumar, Praveen, Long, Stephen P.·2017·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Without new innovations, present rates of increase in yields of food crops globally are inadequate to meet the projected rising food demand for 2050 and beyond. A prevailing response of crops to rising [ CO 2 ] is an increase in leaf area. This is especially marked in soybean, the world's fourth largest food crop in terms of seed production, and the most important vegetable protein source. Is this increase in leaf area beneficial, with respect to increasing yield, or is it detrimental? It is shown from theory and experiment using open‐air whole‐season elevation of atmospheric [ CO 2 ] that it is detrimental not only under future conditions of elevated [ CO 2 ] but also under today's [ CO 2 ]. A mechanistic biophysical and biochemical model of canopy carbon exchange and microclimate ( MLC an) was parameterized for a modern US Midwest soybean cultivar. Model simulations showed that soybean crops grown under current and elevated (550 [ppm]) [ CO 2 ] overinvest in leaves, and this is predicted to decrease productivity and seed yield 8% and 10%, respectively. This prediction was tested in replicated field trials in which a proportion of emerging leaves was removed prior to expansion, so lowering investment in leaves. The experiment was conducted under open‐air conditions for current and future elevated [ CO 2 ] within the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment facility (Soy FACE ) in central Illinois. This treatment resulted in a statistically significant 8% yield increase. This is the first direct proof that a modern crop cultivar produces more leaf than is optimal for yield under today's and future [ CO 2 ] and that reducing leaf area would give higher yields. Breeding or bioengineering for lower leaf area could, therefore, contribute very significantly to meeting future demand for staple food crops given that an 8% yield increase across the USA alone would amount to 6.5 million metric tons annually.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcb.13526

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is likely that some crops overinvest in chl content to the detriment of light distribution in the canopy similar to the manner in which soybean overinvest in leaf area.

    “It is likely that some crops overinvest in chl content to the detriment of light distribution in the canopy similar to the manner in which soybean overinvest in leaf area (Srinivasan et al., 2016).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Ainsworth EA, Long SP (2005) What have we learned from 15 years of free‐air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta‐analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy. New Phytologist, 165, 351– 371. 15720649
  2. Ainsworth EA, Rogers A (2007) The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising CO2: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell and Environment, 30, 258– 270. 17263773
  3. Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Ort DR, Long SP (2008) FACE‐ing the facts: inconsistencies and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies of elevated CO(2) impacts on crop yield and food supply. New Phytologist, 179, 5– 9. 18482226
  4. Ainsworth EA, Yendrek CR, Skoneczka JA, Long SP (2012) Accelerating yield potential in soybean: potential targets for biotechnological improvement. Plant Cell and Environment, 35, 38– 52. 21689112
  5. Bishop KA, Betzelberger AM, Long SP, Ainsworth EA (2015) Is there potential to adapt soybean (Glycine max Merr.) to future [CO2]? An analysis of the yield response of 18 genotypes in free‐air CO2 enrichment. Plant Cell and Environment, 38, 1765– 1774. 25211487
  6. Bunce JA, Ziska LH (1996) Responses of respiration to increases in carbon dioxide concentration and temperature in three soybean cultivars. Annals of Botany, 77, 507– 514.
  7. Campbell GS, Norman JM (1998) An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics (2nd edn). Springer, New York.
  8. Castro JC, Dohleman FG, Bernacchi CJ, Long SP (2009) Elevated CO2 significantly delays reproductive development of soybean under Free‐Air Concentration Enrichment (FACE). Journal of Experimental Botany, 60, 2945– 2951. 19561049
  9. Conley SP, Abendroth L, Elmore R, Christmas EP, Zarnstorff M (2008) Soybean seed yield and composition response to stand reduction at vegetative and reproductive stages. Agronomy Journal, 100, 1666– 1669.
  10. Conley SP, Pedersen P, Christmas EP (2009) Main‐stem node removal effect on soybean seed yield and composition. Agronomy Journal, 101, 120– 123.
  11. Cotton TEA, Fitter AH, Miller RM, Dumbrell AJ, Helgason T (2015) Fungi in the future: inter‐annual variation and effects of atmospheric change on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities. New Phytologist, 205, 1598– 1607. 25560980 PMC4338757
  12. Dermody O, Long SP, DeLucia EH (2006) How does elevated CO2 or ozone affect the leaf‐ area index of soybean when applied independently? New Phytologist, 169, 145– 155. 16390426
  13. Drake BG, GonzalezMeler MA, Long SP (1997) More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 48, 609– 639. 15012276
  14. Drewry DT, Kumar P, Long S, Bernacchi C, Liang XZ, Sivapalan M (2010a) Ecohydrological responses of dense canopies to environmental variability: 1. Interplay between vertical structure and photosynthetic pathway. Journal of Geophysical Research‐Biogeosciences, 115, G04022.
  15. Drewry DT, Kumar P, Long S, Bernacchi C, Liang XZ, Sivapalan M (2010b) Ecohydrological responses of dense canopies to environmental variability: 2. Role of acclimation under elevated CO2. Journal of Geophysical Research‐Biogeosciences, 115, G04023.
  16. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA et al (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337– 342. 21993620
  17. Goto H, Shimada H, Horak MJ et al (2016) Characterization of natural and simulated herbivory on wild soybean (Glycine soja Seib. et Zucc.) for use in ecological risk assessment of insect protected soybean. PLoS ONE, 11, e0151237. 26963815 PMC4786143
  18. Gray SB, Strellner RS, Puthuval KK et al (2013) Minirhizotron imaging reveals that nodulation of field‐grown soybean is enhanced by free‐air CO2 enrichment only when combined with drought stress. Functional Plant Biology, 40, 137– 147. 32481094
  19. Haile F, Higley L, Specht J, Spomer S (1998) Soybean leaf morphology and defoliation tolerance. Agronomy Journal, 90, 353– 362.
  20. Kromdijk W, Long SP (2016) One crop breeding cycle from starvation? How engineering crop photosynthesis for rising CO2 and temperature could be one important route to alleviation Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 283, 20152578. 26962136 PMC4810849
  21. Lobell DB, Roberts MJ, Schlenker W, Braun N, Little BB, Rejesus RM, Hammer GL (2014) Greater sensitivity to drought accompanies maize yield increase in the US Midwest. Science, 344, 516– 519. 24786079
  22. Long SP (2014) We need winners in the race to increase photosynthesis in rice, whether from conventional breeding, biotechnology or both. Plant Cell and Environment, 37, 19– 21. 24004407
  23. Long SP, Drake BG (1991) Effect of the long‐term elevation of CO2 concentration in the field on the quantum yield of photosynthesis of the C3 sedge, Scirpus olneyi. Plant Physiology, 96, 221– 226. 16668155 PMC1080736
  24. Long SP, Ort DR (2010) More than taking the heat: crops and global change. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 13, 241– 248. 20494611
  25. Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Nosberger J, Ort DR (2006) Food for thought: lower than expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science, 312, 1918– 1921. 16809532
  26. Long SP, Marshall‐Colon A, Zhu XG (2015) Meeting the global food demand of the future by engineering crop photosynthesis and yield potential. Cell, 161, 56– 66. 25815985
  27. Minchin FR, Witty JF (2005) Respiratory/carbon costs of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legumes In: Plant Respiration: From Cell to Ecosystem (eds Lambers H, Ribas‐Carbo M), pp. 195– 205. Springer, Dordrecht.
  28. Morgan PB, Bernacchi CJ, Ort DR, Long SP (2004) An in vivo analysis of the effect of season‐long open‐air elevation of ozone to anticipated 2050 levels on photosynthesis in soybean. Plant Physiology, 135, 2348– 2357. 15299126 PMC520802
  29. Morrison MJ, Voldeng HD, Cober ER (1999) Physiological changes from 58 years of genetic improvement of short‐season soybean cultivars in Canada. Agronomy Journal, 91, 685– 689.
  30. Myers SS, Zanobetti A, Kloog I et al (2014) Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition. Nature, 510, 139– 142. 24805231 PMC4810679
  31. Ohara M, Shimamoto Y (1994) Some ecological and demographic characteristics of 2 growth forms of wild soybean (Glycine‐soja). Canadian Journal of Botany, 72, 486– 492.
  32. Ort DR, Long SP (2014) Limits on yields in the corn belt. Science, 344, 483– 484. 24786071
  33. Prentice IC, Farquahar GD, Fasham MJR et al (2001) The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, et al), pp. 183– 230. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  34. Ray DK, Ramankutty N, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA (2012) Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation. Nature Communications, 3, 1293. 23250423
  35. Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA (2013) Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE, 8, e66428. 23840465 PMC3686737
  36. Richards RA (1983) Manipulation of leaf area and its effect on grain yield in droughted wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 34, 23– 31.
  37. Rogers A, Gibon Y, Stitt M, Morgan PB, Bernacchi CJ, Ort DR, Long SP (2006) Increased C availability at elevated carbon dioxide concentration improves N assimilation in a legume. Plant Cell and Environment, 29, 1651– 1658. 16898025
  38. Strzepek K, Boehlert B (2010) Competition for water for the food system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B‐Biological Sciences, 365, 2927– 2940. PMC2935123 20713394
  39. Walker BJ, VanLoocke A, Bernacchi CJ, Ort DR (2016) The costs of photorespiration to food production now and in the future. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 67, 107– 129. 26865340
  40. Welles JM, Norman JM (1991) Instrument for indirect measurement of canopy architecture. Agronomy Journal, 83, 818– 825.
  41. Zavala JA, Casteel CL, DeLucia EH, Berenbaum MR (2008) Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 5129– 5133. 18375762 PMC2278205
  42. Zhang XA, Cai XM (2011) Climate change impacts on global agricultural land availability. Environmental Research Letters, 6, 014014.
  43. Zhang T, Yang X, Wang H, Li Y, Ye Q (2014) Climatic and technological ceilings for Chinese rice stagnation based on yield gaps and yield trend pattern analysis. Global Change Biology, 20, 1289– 1298. 24130084

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Srinivasan, V., Kumar, P., & Long, S. P.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kumar, Praveen
  • Long, Stephen P.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-11-17
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
1626-1635
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2551904884
Cited by
164
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 2
FWCI
16.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Change Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (ATM 06‐28687, EAR09‐11205, CBET 12‐09402, EAR 13‐31906)
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
Keywords
leaf area, elevated CO2, soybean, crop yield, microclimate, food security, crop breeding, bioengineering, global atmospheric change
MeSH terms
Carbon Dioxide, Illinois, Photosynthesis, Glycine max, Plant Leaves, Crops, Agricultural

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