Abstract
The effect of elevated [CO2] (700 µmol/mol) and phosphorus (P) supply on the growth and symbiotic N2 fixation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and barrel medic (Medicago truncatula Gaertn.) were investigated in the glasshouse. The effect of elevated [CO2] on the growth and N2 fixation at various growth stages of the chickpea and field pea plants (grown on a Vertosol) were also examined. Elevated [CO2] generally increased the aboveground biomass of chickpea (by 18–64%), field pea (by 24–57%) and barrel medic (by 49–82%), but the effect was greater when P was non-limiting. Elevated [CO2] only stimulated grain yield of chickpea (by 70%) and field pea (by 21%) if P supply was adequate. Elevated [CO2] reduced the grain protein concentration of chickpea (by 17–18%) regardless of P input, but increased that of field pea (by 11%) when soil P was limiting but had no effect at adequate P. The percentage of shoot N derived from the atmosphere (%Ndfa) of the three legumes was unaffected by elevated [CO2] regardless of soil P supply. Elevated [CO2] increased the amount of N fixed by chickpea (by 20–86%), field pea (by 44–51%) and barrel medic (by 114–250%) under P fertilisation, but had no significant effect when soil P was deficient. These results suggest that the predictions of future climates on the potential contribution of legumes to maintaining soil N fertility will depend on the particular response of a species to soil P status.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 increased chickpea aboveground biomass by 18–64%, with a greater effect when P was non-limiting.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18–64%e0
- Qualifier
- P was non-limitinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] generally increased the aboveground biomass of chickpea (by 18–64%), field pea (by 24–57%) and barrel medic (by 49–82%), but the effect was greater when P was non-limiting.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 increased field pea aboveground biomass by 24–57%.
- Taxon
- field peae0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 24–57%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] generally increased the aboveground biomass of chickpea (by 18–64%), field pea (by 24–57%) and barrel medic (by 49–82%), but the effect was greater when P was non-limiting.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 increased barrel medic aboveground biomass by 49–82%.
- Taxon
- barrel medic
Medicago truncatulae0 - Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 49–82%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] generally increased the aboveground biomass of chickpea (by 18–64%), field pea (by 24–57%) and barrel medic (by 49–82%), but the effect was greater when P was non-limiting.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 stimulated chickpea grain yield by 70% only with adequate P.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
- Value
- 70%e0
- Qualifier
- P supply was adequatee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] only stimulated grain yield of chickpea (by 70%) and field pea (by 21%) if P supply was adequate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 stimulated field pea grain yield by 21% only with adequate P.
- Taxon
- field peae0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
- Value
- 21%e0
- Qualifier
- P supply was adequatee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] only stimulated grain yield of chickpea (by 70%) and field pea (by 21%) if P supply was adequate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 reduced chickpea grain protein concentration by 17–18% regardless of P input.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- grain protein concentratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 17–18%e0
- Qualifier
- regardless of P inpute0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] reduced the grain protein concentration of chickpea (by 17–18%) regardless of P input, but increased that of field pea (by 11%) when soil P was limiting but had no effect at adequate P.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 increased field pea grain protein concentration by 11% when soil P was limiting.
- Taxon
- field peae0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- grain protein concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 11%e0
- Qualifier
- soil P was limitinge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] reduced the grain protein concentration of chickpea (by 17–18%) regardless of P input, but increased that of field pea (by 11%) when soil P was limiting but had no effect at adequate P.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 had no effect on field pea grain protein concentration at adequate P.
- Taxon
- field peae0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- grain protein concentratione0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- adequate Pe0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] reduced the grain protein concentration of chickpea (by 17–18%) regardless of P input, but increased that of field pea (by 11%) when soil P was limiting but had no effect at adequate P.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 did not affect percentage of shoot N derived from atmosphere in the three legumes.
- Taxon
- the three legumese0
- Treatment
- elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- percentage of shoot N derived from the atmospheree0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
- Qualifier
- regardless of soil P supplye0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The percentage of shoot N derived from the atmosphere (%Ndfa) of the three legumes was unaffected by elevated [CO2] regardless of soil P supply.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under P fertilisation, elevated CO2 increased N fixed by chickpea by 20–86%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- amount of N fixede0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 20–86%e0
- Qualifier
- under P fertilisatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] increased the amount of N fixed by chickpea (by 20–86%), field pea (by 44–51%) and barrel medic (by 114–250%) under P fertilisation, but had no significant effect when soil P was deficient.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under P fertilisation, elevated CO2 increased N fixed by field pea by 44–51%.
- Taxon
- field peae0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- amount of N fixede0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 44–51%e0
- Qualifier
- under P fertilisatione0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] increased the amount of N fixed by chickpea (by 20–86%), field pea (by 44–51%) and barrel medic (by 114–250%) under P fertilisation, but had no significant effect when soil P was deficient.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under P fertilisation, elevated CO2 increased N fixed by barrel medic by 114–250%.
- Taxon
- barrel medicMedicago truncatulae0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- amount of N fixede0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 114–250%e0
- Qualifier
- under P fertilisatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] increased the amount of N fixed by chickpea (by 20–86%), field pea (by 44–51%) and barrel medic (by 114–250%) under P fertilisation, but had no significant effect when soil P was deficient.”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 had no significant effect on N fixed when soil P was deficient.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Elevated [CO2]e0
- Outcome
- amount of N fixede0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Qualifier
- soil P was deficiente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated [CO2] increased the amount of N fixed by chickpea (by 20–86%), field pea (by 44–51%) and barrel medic (by 114–250%) under P fertilisation, but had no significant effect when soil P was deficient.”
The same questions in other papers
co2 · growth · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →co2 · quality: protein · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
co2 · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →co2 · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →co2 · growth · Medicago truncatula (barrel medic)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
co2 · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.