Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T07:23:04.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rising CO2 in the field does not offset warming or drought constraints on leaf growth of a C3 forage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2020

L. H. G. de Camargo-Bortolin
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Federal University of São Carlos, Road Washington Luiz km 235, São Carlos, São Paulo13565-905, Brazil
E. Habermann
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, FFCLRP, University of São Paulo, Avenue Bandeirantes, 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo14040-901, Brazil
P. Vicente
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Federal University of São Carlos, Road Washington Luiz km 235, São Carlos, São Paulo13565-905, Brazil
A. Barboza
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, FFCLRP, University of São Paulo, Avenue Bandeirantes, 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo14040-901, Brazil
M. Groppo
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, FFCLRP, University of São Paulo, Avenue Bandeirantes, 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo14040-901, Brazil
C. H. B. A. Prado*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Federal University of São Carlos, Road Washington Luiz km 235, São Carlos, São Paulo13565-905, Brazil
C. A. Martinez
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, FFCLRP, University of São Paulo, Avenue Bandeirantes, 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo14040-901, Brazil
*
*Corresponding author. Email: kiq.prado@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The regrowth of a C3 forage Stylosanthes capitata in a rain-fed field provided the weekly data collection in the southeast of Brazil during a heat event in autumn. A system named Trop-T-FACE simulated the free-air carbon dioxide enrichment and the enhanced temperature in four climatic regimes: current atmospheric conditions (Control), CO2 enrichment (600 ppm, eC), warming (2 °C above ambient canopy temperature, eT), and a combination of eC + eT. The area and biomass of foliage per shoot decreased, and the number of flowers per shoot and flowered ramification increased under single eC treatment besides the increment in palisade parenchyma of leaves. Increased investment in flowering in eC occurred notably when the soil water content was higher than 0.30 m3 m–3. Single eT treatment also impaired the area or biomass of foliage production per shoot, raised the shoot mortality, and promoted the increment of the spongy leaf parenchyma. There was some mitigation of the adverse effects of foliage production of eT or eC in eC + eT, but under this combined treatment, the shoot mortality also increased. Changes in leaf tissues under eC or eT or some mitigation of adverse effects in eC + eT did not offset the constraints on leaf growth per shoot. The harmful impact on foliage production by eC, eT, or eC + eT under rain-fed conditions indicated no advantages for feeding the livestock with the C3 forage S. capitata in expected climate change under field conditions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020
Figure 0

Figure 1. The daily and midday average values (±standard deviation) of total solar irradiance (a), relative air humidity (b), and wind speed (c) from 30 April to 17 June 2015 at the center of the experimental area. The soil temperature in heated and non-heated treatments (d), with the average of the differences (Δ) between those treatments and the Control. The continuous line represents the averages in plots with natural conditions of CO2 and temperature (Control) and enriched CO2 at 600 ppm (eC). The dotted line represents the averages of enhanced temperature +2 °C above ambient (eT), and the combined treatments (eC + eT). The soil water content (e) was obtained in Control (Ctrl), eC, eT, and eC + eT. The arrows with numeric values in (e) indicate rainfalls (mm) during the experimental period.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Daily canopy temperatures recorded from 30 April to 17 June 2015. The averages of the plots with ambient CO2 and temperature (Control), and with 600 ppm of CO2 (eC), are represented by a continuous line. The averages of the plots with the temperature at 2 °C above ambient (eT), and with the combined treatments (eC + eT), are represented by a dotted line. The average of the differences between the treatments and the Control are shown as the Δ values.

Figure 2

Table 1. Percentage of shoot survivorship and average ± standard error of vegetative and reproductive growth parameters of Stylosanthes capitata grown under different atmospheric regimes: ambient CO2 and temperature (Control), 600 ppm of CO2 (eC), canopy temperature 2 °C above (eT), and eC + eT. Different letters after percentage of survivorship or ± standard error indicate significant differences at p < 0.1 by Chi-square test for shoot survivorship and Mann–Whitney test for the other parameters. Values in brackets indicate the percentage of increasing (+) or decreasing (−) about Control

Figure 3

Figure 3. Discriminant analysis considering all vegetative and reproductive growth parameters of Stylosanthes capitata grown under ambient CO2 and temperature (Control), under 600 ppm of CO2 (eC), under foliar temperature 2 °C above ambient (eT), and under eC + eT. Symbols represent a synthesis of all parameters measured in each shoot. Different symbols indicate the treatments applied: control (), eC (), eT (), and eC + eT (). Arrows point to the centroid of the distribution of observations in each treatment. The proximity of symbols or centroids indicates how close the atmospheric regimes are associated.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Flowering, daily soil water content, and differences of soil temperature and soil water content during the experimental period from 30 April 2015 to 17 June 2015. Four periods (P1–P4) were depicted according to flowering behavior. (a) Average number of flowers per shoot in Stylosanthes capitata under ambient CO2 and temperature (Control, solid line), under 600 ppm of CO2 (eC, dashed line), under foliar temperature 2 °C above ambient (eT, dotted line), and under both treatments (eC + eT, open line). (b) Soil water content in plots under Control, eC, eT, and under eC + eT. Arrows with numeric values represent the rainfall intensity (mm). (c) Average soil temperature differences (ΔTsoil) between non-warmed (control and eC) and warmed (eT and eC + eT) regimes and the average of the differences in soil water content between eC and the other atmospheric regimes.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Isolated and combined effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on leaf anatomical characteristics of Stylosanthes capitata. Each leaf tissue is represented by a different color, and the measurements given (µm) are averages of four replications (n = 4). The percentage (%) of each tissue concerning total leaf thickness is shown for the adaxial and abaxial epidermis and palisade and spongy parenchyma in the columns. The negative bars (−SE) represent the standard error for leaf layer thickness (µm) and the positive bars (+SE) for total leaf thickness (µm). Treatments: Control (ambient CO2 and temperature), eC (600 ppm CO2 concentration and ambient temperature), eT (ambient CO2 concentration and 2 °C above ambient canopy temperature), and eC + eT (600 ppm CO2 concentration and 2 °C above ambient canopy temperature). Significant differences (p < 0.1) between the treatments and the control are indicated by an asterisk (*).