The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reduction of transpiration and altered nutrient allocation contribute to nutrient decline of crops grown in elevated CO2 concentrations
Open accessAbstract
Plants grown in elevated [CO 2] have lower protein and mineral concentrations compared with plants grown in ambient [CO 2]. Dilution by enhanced production of carbohydrates is a likely cause, but it cannot explain all of the reductions. Two proposed, but untested, hypotheses are that (1) reduced canopy transpiration reduces mass flow of nutrients to the roots thus reducing nutrient uptake and (2) changes in metabolite or enzyme concentrations caused by physiological changes alter requirements for minerals as protein cofactors or in other organic complexes, shifting allocation between tissues and possibly altering uptake. Here, we use the meta‐analysis of previous studies in crops to test these hypotheses. Nutrients acquired mostly by mass flow were decreased significantly more by elevated [CO 2] than nutrients acquired by diffusion to the roots through the soil, supporting the first hypothesis. Similarly, Mg showed large concentration declines in leaves and wheat stems, but smaller decreases in other tissues. Because chlorophyll requires a large fraction of total plant Mg, and chlorophyll concentration is reduced by growth in elevated [CO 2], this supports the second hypothesis. Understanding these mechanisms may guide efforts to improve nutrient content, and allow modeling of nutrient changes and health impacts under future climate change scenarios.
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
A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation
Efron, B., & Gong, G. (1983) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1983.10483087 · Cited by 3,229
Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE
Leakey, A. D. B., Ainsworth, E. A., Bernacchi, C. J., Rogers, A., Long, S. P., & Ort, D. R. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erp096 · Cited by 1,678
Rising atmospheric CO2 and human nutrition: toward globally imbalanced plant stoichiometry?
Loladze, I. (2002) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(02)02587-9 · Cited by 412
Cited by
Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition
Myers, S. S., Zanobetti, A., Kloog, I., Huybers, P., Leakey, A. D. B., Bloom, A. J., Carlisle, E., Dietterich, L. H., Fitzgerald, G., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13179 · Cited by 1,470
Soares, J. C., Santos, C. S., Carvalho, S. M. P., Pintado, M. M., & Vasconcelos, M. W. (2019) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-019-04229-0 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- MCGRATH, J. M., & LOBELL, D. B.
- Venue
- Plant, Cell & Environment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-10-03
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 697-705
- ISSN
- 0140-7791 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-3040
- OpenAlex
- W2155201573
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Reduction of transpiration and altered nutrient allocation contribute to nutrient decline of crops grown in elevated CO2 concentrations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/pce.12007
- The paper
- MCGRATH, J. M., & LOBELL, D. B. (2013). Reduction of transpiration and altered nutrient allocation contribute to nutrient decline of crops grown in elevated CO2 concentrations. Plant, Cell & Environment. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12007
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.