the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Physiological responses to ultra-high CO2 levels in an evergreen tree species
Abstract. Although numerous experiments have been dedicated to studying plant response to elevated CO2, almost none crossed the level of 1000 ppm. Plant responses to high CO2 levels importantly inform our understanding of plant physiology in ultra-high CO2 environments, e.g., in Earth history, in the case of unmitigated anthropogenic emissions, and for future colonization of Mars.
Here, we challenged two-year old seedlings of fruit trees grown in soil in a mesocosm, with CO2 levels of 400, 1600 and 6000 ppm, the highest of which is approximately equivalent to that of Mars’ atmosphere. Plant growth, and leaf gas exchange (transpiration, stomatal conductance, and CO2 assimilation) were measured on a weekly basis for 3 consecutive weeks. We hypothesized that elevated CO2 levels will induce a decrease in transpiration, primarily attributed to reduced stomatal conductance. Indeed, leaf transpiration was decreased at 1600 ppm CO2 and remained low at 6000 ppm, concurrent with a 50 % decrease in stomatal conductance. The CO2-induced stomatal closure appears to have saturated between 850 and 1600 ppm CO2. Due to this effect, net assimilation was only mildly changed at 1600 ppm CO2, but significantly increased at 6000 ppm. As a result, water-use efficiency quadrupled at 6000 ppm CO2. Stem height increment did not change significantly across the CO2 treatments.
Taken together, our measurements demonstrated both the potential and limit of CO2-induced stomatal closure, with positive implications for fruit tree growth in ultra-high CO2 environments, as on Earth in the case of unmitigated anthropogenic CO2 emissions and on Mars.
- Preprint
(837 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(289 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-807', Anju Manandhar, 07 Apr 2025
reply
The manuscript by Levy etal. was a straightforward study showing the relatively short-term effect of 400, 1600 and 6000 ppm of CO2 on stomatal conductance and assimilation. The study exposed two-year old seedlings of guava trees to each CO2 level for a period of three weeks. They show a slight decrease in stomatal conductance and a somewhat increased assimilation with the 1600 and 6000ppm treatments. Overall the study only sufficiently showed a 3 week acclimation effect at differing CO2 levels.
There were only two points of concern. First the, the measurement of stomatal density increasing at higher level of CO2. The manuscript does not make clear the types of leaves sampled for this measurement.
Which leaves were used to measure stomatal density to show the effect of CO2 treatment? Was there sufficient time for new leaves to develop and reach maturity during CO2 level exposure to determine whether there was a developmental effect on stomatal density?
Unless this study is suggesting that stomatal density is changing in the same mature leaf. If so, the manuscript needs provide evidence that the number of stomata on the same leaf increases or decreases after they reach maturity. Because at this moment there is no evidence of new regime of changes in cell fates in mature leaves. Papers on stomatal density signaling:
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01292.x
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16172139/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138501020957
Second the authors could have verified or contrasted the result of photosynthesis induced stomatal closure saturating between 850 and 1600 could be verified with a gs-Ci curve and an Aci curve. Especially since the paper’s objective is to show the gs and assimilation responses after acclimation for a few weeks. It would be valuable to compare with gs and A response to instantaneous changes in CO2 levels compared to three weeks of acclimation. Even an A-ci curve up to the maximum range that a li6800 can manage would have been enough to show this or the lack of li6800’s ability to reach high enough CO2 levels to saturate A for this species.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-807-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-807', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Apr 2025
reply
The authors exposed two-year old dwarf guava seedlings (Psidium cattleyanum) to a range of CO2 concentrations, up to a very high level of 6000 ppm, evaluating the impact on transpiration, assimilation and water use efficiency. Overall, the question is interesting and posed in an engaging context of larger questions. However, many conclusions are stated as if they apply to all plants or all trees, where we actually have research here on a single species, which happens to be a small stature tree or shrub, rather than a typical canopy tree of the type in which much of the aboveground biomass is stored in tropical rainforests. This makes many conclusions a bit overstated. The research here is on an economically important plant in some regions where it is cultivated, as well as some (like Hawai’i) where it is a nuisance or invasive species. The cultivation context might be more interesting, especially for the exobiological framing of the research at very high concentrations. I have some concerns on the possible errors introduced by calculating assimilation by using CO2 sensors meant for chamber regulation rather than Finally, a greater number and diversity of citations are needed to support many points made here, with less dependence on previous work involving the senior author.
I concur with the previous comments on stomatal density and possibly using the LI-1680 to confirm results, which should be/would have been possible if impacts were observed below 2000 ppm.
Lines 158-159: “Notably, at 6000 ppm CO2, fluctuations of ±30 ppm are equal to ±0.5%, which is negligible.” This would be a valid statement if the whole experiment was conducted at this level, but it is a much larger percent deviation at 400 ppm. More importantly, however, is that this sensor is used to estimate the assimilation at the elevated CO2 levels by all the plants in the chamber. So the relevant percent error is that relative to the difference in CO2 concentrations being used to estimate assimilation, not the absolute CO2 level in the chamber.
Lines 194-195: “using the LI-6800 infrared gas analyzer (see under Plant response to light intensity) but could not be measured using the leaf cuvette at the higher CO2 levels, due to the instrument limitations”. I believe the LI-6800 can hold concentrations up to 2000 umol mol-1, so measurements at the 1600 ppm level should have been achievable. Additionally, an A-Ci curve would likely show flattening at a concentration well below 2000 ppm, even in plants growing in 6000 ppm. These could have been used to confirm the results from the whole chamber estimates of assimilation.
Lines 104-105: “it has been established that under field conditions, tree growth is unaffected by elevated CO2 (Korner et al. 2005, Klein et al. 2016)” This statement is misleading and relies on results from a single site. This statement is not supported by some free air carbon dioxide (FACE) studies, despite the results at the elevated CO2 facility in the Swiss Alps cited here. While similar results have been found in some FACE studies (e.g. Norby, R.J., et al. Tree Physiology 42.3 (2022): 428-440 or Jiang, M.K. et al. Nature 580, 227–231 (2020), authors should note that these or other citations could bolster the argument here), other FACE studies have found increased growth rates (e.g. Kim, Dohyoung, et al. Global Change Biology 26.4 (2020): 2519-2533 or Norby, Richard J., et al. Nature Climate Change 14.9 (2024): 983-988.) Overall, the preponderance of evidence is that individual trees will grow faster under elevated CO2 unless they run into another growth limitation. The difference is not merely if the trees are under ‘field conditions’, but depends on growth limits imposed by factors such as nutrient supply or light availability (e.g., open or closed canopy). These limitations are uncommon and usually remedied in cultivated fruit-bearing species, so arguably do not apply to this research on guava trees. The lack of response is generally associated with forests that have closed canopies and applies to growth at the stand scale. It is not generally accepted to apply to individual trees in an open canopy unless another severe growth limitation is in place.
Lines 115-116: “High concentrations of CO2, which decrease the stomatal conductance, lead to a notable reduction in water loss and an increase in the plant’s water-use efficiency (WUE)...” This statement is not fully supported by the literature. A meta analysis of intrinsic WUE found that increased photosynthesis, rather than decreased stomatal conductance was primarily responsible for increased iWUE under elevated CO2 (Mathias, J.M., and R.B. Thomas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118.7 (2021): e2014286118.), while results from some sites show that results at the stand scale may depend on whether increases in canopy leaf area offset stomatal closure (Ward, E.J., et al. Global Change Biology 24.10 (2018): 4841-4856), which is more likely with well-spaced, managed fruit and fiber plantation forests than with natural, mature multispecies stands.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-807-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-807', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Apr 2025
reply
This manuscript presents experimental results on leaf gas exchange and carbon assimilation under ambient and extremely high CO2 concentrations. In the experiment, fruit trees were exposed to CO2 levels of 400, 1600, and 6000 ppm (approximating Mars’ atmospheric conditions) in a controlled mesocosm. Leaf transpiration, stomatal conductance, stomatal density, CO2 assimilation, and growth metrics were systematically monitored. Overall, the experiment is robust, and the results are generally well interpreted. I have a few outstanding questions, particularly regarding the interpretation of WUE changes, statistical analysis, and stomatal density. I also note a few methodological aspects that need additional details for clarity.
1) Analysis and discussion of the unchanged WUE from 400 to 1600ppm CO2
The manuscript reports no increase in WUE from 400 to 1600 ppm CO2, attributed to a decrease in assimilation due to stronger stomatal conductance reduction not compensated by passive diffusion. Since many stomatal conductance models predict a near-linear increase of WUE to Ca, with no indication of saturation (e.g. Walker et al., 2021), further analysis and discussion would be helpful to explain the observed stable WUE considering other limitations (e.g. mesophyll conductance) as well as the potential uncertainties/biases in the measurements (also see point 4).
Walker, A. P., De Kauwe, M. G., Bastos, A.et al..: Integrating the evidence for a terrestrial carbon sink caused by increasing atmospheric CO2, New Phytologist, 229, 2413–2445, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16866, 2021.2) Statistical analysis of leaf transpiration and stomatal conductance
2a) A summary statistical test aggregating data across all days for each CO2 level would be helpful for interpretation. While the current presentation is informative incorporating all data, it is somewhat difficult to interpret.
2b) Moreover, it is unclear how the reported 20% differences in transpiration (Line 231) and in 50% decrease in gs (Line 234) between CO2 levels was derived, and how statistically significant they are. Further clarification would be helpful.
2c) The observed increasing trend of gs (pretty significant) and transpiration under 400 ppm is attributed to acclimation within the first 10 days. However, both variables seem to continue increasing beyond 10 days. Could the authors provide potential explanation for this?
3) Analysis of leaf stomatal density does not account for potential confounding factors
3a) In terms of measurement (L210), more details would be needed regarding the sampling frequency, number of leaf samples each time, leaf age, leaf location – top of or below canopy.
3b) As noted by other reviewers, the analysis of leaf stomatal density does not appear to account for confounding factors, such as leaf age, leaf light environment, specific trees. Stomatal density change might only occur in new leaves during development, probably wouldn’t happen in mature leaves.
3c) Regarding Fig. 1:
- It’s not always clear, which day and which measurements each p-value correspond to.
- In abstract and methodology, the treatment periods were three weeks, but this figure appears to cover four weeks for each treatment.
4) Measurement and analysis of net assimilation
4a) Net assimilation was measured with a gas analyzer under 400ppm, and inferred from chamber CO2 concentration under 1600 and 6000ppm (L193). Were the two approaches cross-compared under 400ppm levels? This would be helpful to verify consistency and understand potential biases.
4b) The reported decrease in assimilation from 400 to 1600 is interesting. It would be helpful to rule out any potential impacts from the change of measurement method.
5) How did leaf surface areas change across treatments?
L295: How about leaf area data measured but not shown in the manuscript?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-807-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
97 | 47 | 5 | 149 | 31 | 2 | 6 |
- HTML: 97
- PDF: 47
- XML: 5
- Total: 149
- Supplement: 31
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 46 | 34 |
Israel | 2 | 11 | 8 |
China | 3 | 10 | 7 |
France | 4 | 8 | 6 |
India | 5 | 6 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 46