Paper · 1985 · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY

Reversibility of Photosynthetic Inhibition in Cotton after Long-Term Exposure to Elevated CO2 Concentrations

Thomas W. Sasek; Evan H. Delucia; Boyd R. Strain

8
claims
17
verbatim quotes
165
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. cv Stoneville 213) was grown at 350 and 1000 microliters per liter CO(2). The plants grown at elevated CO(2) concentrations contained large starch pools and showed initial symptoms of visible physical damage. Photosynthetic rates were lower than expected based on instantaneous exposure to high CO(2).A group of plants grown at 1000 microliters per liter CO(2) was switched to 350 microliters per liter CO(2). Starch pools and photosynthetic rates were monitored in the switched plants and in the two unswitched control groups. Photosynthetic rates per unit leaf area recovered to the level of the 350 microliters per liter CO(2) grown control group within four to five days. To assess only nonstomatal limitations to photosynthesis, a measure of photosynthetic efficiencies was calculated (moles CO(2) fixed per square meter per second per mole intercellular CO(2)). Photosynthetic efficiency also recovered to the levels of the 350 microliters per liter CO(2) grown controls within three to four days.Recovery was correlated to a rapid depletion of the starch pool, indicating that the inhibition of photosynthesis is primarily a result of feedback inhibition. However, complete recovery may involve the repair of damage to the chloroplasts caused by excessive starch accumulation. The rapid and complete reversal of photosynthetic inhibition suggests that the appearance of large, strong sinks at certain developmental stages could result in reduction of the large starch accumulations and that photosynthetic rates could recover to near the theoretical capacity during periods of high photosynthate demand.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton grown at elevated CO2 had large starch pools and visible physical damage.

Material
Stoneville 213e0
Treatment
elevated CO(2) concentrationse0
Outcome
large starch pools and showed initial symptoms of visible physical damagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. cv Stoneville 213) was grown at 350 and 1000 microliters per liter CO(2). The plants grown at elevated CO(2) concentrations contained large starch pools and showed initial symptoms of visible physical damage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–237 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Photosynthetic rates after growth at elevated CO2 were lower than expected from instantaneous high-CO2 exposure.

Outcome
Photosynthetic ratese0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
instantaneous exposure to high CO(2)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Photosynthetic rates were lower than expected based on instantaneous exposure to high CO(2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 239–330 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–52 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After transfer from 1000 to 350 microliters per liter CO2, cotton leaf-area photosynthetic rates recovered to the 350-grown control level within four to five days.

Treatment
switched to 350 microliters per liter CO(2)e0
Outcome
Photosynthetic rates per unit leaf areae1
Direction
recoverede1
Qualifier
within four to five dayse1
Comparator
350 microliters per liter CO(2) grown control groupe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A group of plants grown at 1000 microliters per liter CO(2) was switched to 350 microliters per liter CO(2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 331–438 · show in text ↑
e1

“Photosynthetic rates per unit leaf area recovered to the level of the 350 microliters per liter CO(2) grown control group within four to five days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–704 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–52 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton photosynthetic efficiency recovered to the 350-grown control level within three to four days.

Treatment
switched to 350 microliters per liter CO(2)e0
Outcome
Photosynthetic efficiencye1
Direction
recoverede1
Qualifier
within three to four dayse1
Comparator
350 microliters per liter CO(2) grown controlse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“was switched to 350 microliters per liter CO(2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 391–438 · show in text ↑
e1

“Photosynthetic efficiency also recovered to the levels of the 350 microliters per liter CO(2) grown controls within three to four days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–1032 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–52 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Recovery of cotton photosynthesis correlated with rapid depletion of starch pools.

Compound
starche0
Outcome
Recoverye0
Qualifier
rapid depletion of the starch poole0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recovery was correlated to a rapid depletion of the starch pool”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1033–1096 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–52 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attributed cotton photosynthetic inhibition primarily to feedback inhibition associated with starch depletion.

Compound
starche0
Outcome
inhibition of photosynthesise0
Qualifier
feedback inhibitione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recovery was correlated to a rapid depletion of the starch pool, indicating that the inhibition of photosynthesis is primarily a result of feedback inhibition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1033–1191 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–52 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors proposed that complete recovery may involve repair of chloroplast damage caused by excessive starch accumulation.

Compound
starche0
Outcome
complete recoverye0
Qualifier
repair of damage to the chloroplastse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“complete recovery may involve the repair of damage to the chloroplasts caused by excessive starch accumulation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1202–1312 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–52 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggested strong sinks at developmental stages could reduce starch accumulation and restore near-theoretical photosynthesis during high photosynthate demand.

Compound
starche0
Outcome
photosynthetic rates could recover to near the theoretical capacitye0
Qualifier
large, strong sinks at certain developmental stagese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“large, strong sinks at certain developmental stages could result in reduction of the large starch accumulations and that photosynthetic rates could recover to near the theoretical capacity during periods of high photosynthate demand”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1407–1639 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–52 · show in text ↑

co2 · physiology: photosynthesis · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 9 positive, 3 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 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.