Abstract
Abstract A 2‐year F ree A ir C O 2 E nrichment ( FACE ) experiment was conducted with winter wheat. It was investigated whether elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration (e[ CO 2 ]) inhibit nitrate assimilation and whether better growth and nitrogen acquisition under e[ CO 2 ] can be achieved with an ammonium‐based fertilization as it was observed in hydroponic culture with wheat. Under e[ CO 2 ] a decrease in nitrate assimilation has been discussed as the cause for observed declines in protein concentration in C 3 cereals. Wheat was grown under ambient [ CO 2 ] and e[ CO 2 ] (600 ppm) with three levels (deficiency, optimal, and excessive) of nitrate‐based fertilization (calcium ammonium nitrate; CAN ) or with optimal ammonium‐based fertilization. Ammonium fertilization was applied via injection of an ammonium solution into the soil in the 1st year and by surface application of urea combined with nitrification inhibitors ( UNI ) in the 2nd year. Results showed that ammonium‐based fertilization was successfully achieved in the 2nd year with respect to nitrification control, as soil ammonium concentration was considerably higher over the growing season for UNI fertilized plots compared to optimal CAN plots. Also, stem nitrate concentration, flag leaf nitrate reductase activity, and transcript levels were lower in UNI fertilized plants compared to optimal CAN . Regarding the e[ CO 2 ] effect on nitrate reductase activity and transcript levels, no alteration could be observed for any nitrogen fertilizer treatment. Flag leaf growth was stimulated under e[ CO 2 ] leading to an enhanced nitrate reductase activity referred to m 2 ground area at late flowering being in line with a higher nitrogen acquisition under e[ CO 2 ]. Moreover, nitrogen acquisition was considerably higher in nitrate fertilized plants compared to ammonium fertilized plants under e[ CO 2 ]. Our results obtained under field conditions show that a change from nitrate‐ to ammonium‐based fertilization will not lead to a better growth and nitrogen acquisition of winter wheat under future e[ CO 2 ].
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
UNI fertilization yielded considerably higher soil ammonium than optimal CAN in year two.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- UNI fertilized plotse0
- Outcome
- soil ammonium concentratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- optimal CAN plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil ammonium concentration was considerably higher over the growing season for UNI fertilized plots compared to optimal CAN plots”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
UNI-fertilized plants had lower stem nitrate concentration than optimal CAN plants.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- UNI fertilized plantse0
- Outcome
- stem nitrate concentratione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- optimal CANe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stem nitrate concentration, flag leaf nitrate reductase activity, and transcript levels were lower in UNI fertilized plants compared to optimal CAN”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
UNI-fertilized plants had lower flag-leaf nitrate reductase activity than optimal CAN plants.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- UNI fertilized plantse0
- Outcome
- flag leaf nitrate reductase activitye0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- optimal CANe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stem nitrate concentration, flag leaf nitrate reductase activity, and transcript levels were lower in UNI fertilized plants compared to optimal CAN”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
UNI-fertilized plants had lower transcript levels than optimal CAN plants.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- UNI fertilized plantse0
- Outcome
- transcript levelse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- optimal CANe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stem nitrate concentration, flag leaf nitrate reductase activity, and transcript levels were lower in UNI fertilized plants compared to optimal CAN”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated carbon dioxide did not alter nitrate reductase activity under any nitrogen fertilizer treatment.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- e[ CO 2 ]e0
- Outcome
- nitrate reductase activitye0
- Direction
- no alteratione0
- Comparator
- ambient [ CO 2 ]e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regarding the e[ CO 2 ] effect on nitrate reductase activity and transcript levels, no alteration could be observed for any nitrogen fertilizer treatment”
e1“Wheat was grown under ambient [ CO 2 ] and e[ CO 2 ] (600 ppm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated carbon dioxide did not alter transcript levels under any nitrogen fertilizer treatment.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- e[ CO 2 ]e0
- Outcome
- transcript levelse0
- Direction
- no alteratione0
- Comparator
- ambient [ CO 2 ]e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regarding the e[ CO 2 ] effect on nitrate reductase activity and transcript levels, no alteration could be observed for any nitrogen fertilizer treatment”
e1“Wheat was grown under ambient [ CO 2 ] and e[ CO 2 ] (600 ppm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated carbon dioxide stimulated flag-leaf growth.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- e[ CO 2 ]e0
- Outcome
- Flag leaf growthe0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
- Comparator
- ambient [ CO 2 ]e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flag leaf growth was stimulated under e[ CO 2 ]”
e1“Wheat was grown under ambient [ CO 2 ] and e[ CO 2 ] (600 ppm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated carbon dioxide increased nitrate reductase activity per ground area at late flowering.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume1
- Organ / stage
- late floweringe0
- Treatment
- e[ CO 2 ]e0
- Outcome
- nitrate reductase activity referred to m 2 ground areae0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- ambient [ CO 2 ]e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“an enhanced nitrate reductase activity referred to m 2 ground area at late flowering being in line with a higher nitrogen acquisition under e[ CO 2 ]”
e1“Wheat was grown under ambient [ CO 2 ] and e[ CO 2 ] (600 ppm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated carbon dioxide increased nitrogen acquisition.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- e[ CO 2 ]e0
- Outcome
- nitrogen acquisitione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- ambient [ CO 2 ]e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a higher nitrogen acquisition under e[ CO 2 ]”
e1“Wheat was grown under ambient [ CO 2 ] and e[ CO 2 ] (600 ppm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under elevated carbon dioxide, nitrate-fertilized plants acquired considerably more nitrogen than ammonium-fertilized plants.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- nitrate fertilized plantse0
- Outcome
- nitrogen acquisitione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- under e[ CO 2 ]e0
- Comparator
- ammonium fertilized plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nitrogen acquisition was considerably higher in nitrate fertilized plants compared to ammonium fertilized plants under e[ CO 2 ]”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude switching to ammonium fertilization will not improve winter-wheat growth under future elevated carbon dioxide.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- will not lead to a better growthe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a change from nitrate‐ to ammonium‐based fertilization will not lead to a better growth and nitrogen acquisition of winter wheat under future e[ CO 2 ]”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude switching to ammonium fertilization will not improve winter-wheat nitrogen acquisition under future elevated carbon dioxide.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- nitrogen acquisitione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a change from nitrate‐ to ammonium‐based fertilization will not lead to a better growth and nitrogen acquisition of winter wheat under future e[ CO 2 ]”
The same questions in other papers
co2 · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →co2 · physiology: enzyme activity · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →co2 · molecular: expression · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →co2 · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
141 papers more in this group
See all 145 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.