atmospheric carbon dioxide global crop production by

Downloaded from rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org on September 26, 2012

Food security and climate change: on the potential to adapt global crop production by active selection to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide Lewis H. Ziska, James A. Bunce, Hiroyuki Shimono, David R. Gealy, Jeffrey T. Baker, Paul C. D. Newton, Matthew P. Reynolds, Krishna S. V. Jagadish, Chunwu Zhu, Mark Howden and Lloyd T. Wilson Proc. R. Soc. B 2012 279, 4097-4105 first published online 8 August 2012 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1005

References

This article cites 64 articles, 8 of which can be accessed free

Subject collections

Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1745/4097.full.html#ref-list-1

environmental science (174 articles) genetics (34 articles) plant science (14 articles)

Email alerting service

Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article or click here

To subscribe to Proc. R. Soc. B go to: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions


Proc. R. Soc. B (2012) 279, 4097–4105 doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1005 Published online 8 August 2012

Review

Food security and climate change: on the potential to adapt global crop production by active selection to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide Lewis H. Ziska1,*, James A. Bunce1, Hiroyuki Shimono2, David R. Gealy3, Jeffrey T. Baker4, Paul C. D. Newton5, Matthew P. Reynolds6, Krishna S. V. Jagadish7, Chunwu Zhu8, Mark Howden9 and Lloyd T. Wilson10 1

Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA 2 Faculty of Agriculture, Iwate University, Ueda, Morioka, Iwate, Japan 3 Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center, USDA-ARS, Stuttgart, AR 72160, USA 4 Wind Erosion and Water Conservation Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 302 West I-20, Big Spring, TX 79720, USA 5 Land and Environment Group, AgResearch, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North, New Zealand 6 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT ), Apdo. Postal 6-641, Texcoco 06600, Mexico 7 Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI ), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines 8 State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, East Beijing Road No. 71, Nanjing 210008, People’s Republic of China 9 Adaptive Primary Industries and Enterprises, CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, Australia Capital Territory 2601, Australia 10 Agrilife Research and Extension Center, Texas A&M University, 1509 Aggie Drive, Beaumont, TX 77713, USA Agricultural production is under increasing pressure by global anthropogenic changes, including rising population, diversion of cereals to biofuels, increased protein demands and climatic extremes. Because of the immediate and dynamic nature of these changes, adaptation measures are urgently needed to ensure both the stability and continued increase of the global food supply. Although potential adaption options often consider regional or sectoral variations of existing risk management (e.g. earlier planting dates, choice of crop), there may be a global-centric strategy for increasing productivity. In spite of the recognition that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential plant resource that has increased globally by approximately 25 per cent since 1959, efforts to increase the biological conversion of atmospheric CO2 to stimulate seed yield through crop selection is not generally recognized as an effective adaptation measure. In this review, we challenge that viewpoint through an assessment of existing studies on CO2 and intraspecific variability to illustrate the potential biological basis for differential plant response among crop lines and demonstrate that while technical hurdles remain, active selection and breeding for CO2 responsiveness among cereal varieties may provide one of the simplest and direct strategies for increasing global yields and maintaining food security with anthropogenic change. Keywords: adaptation; breeding; climate change; carbon dioxide; food security

1. INTRODUCTION The impact of the green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s in stimulating cereal productivity and ensuring near-global food security is well recognized. However, a current analysis of yield increases of eight key cereals relative to the increase in the human population since that period indicates that any green revolution-induced increases in cereal production, relative to population growth are now at an end (figure 1).

* Author for correspondence ([email protected]). Received 2 May 2012 Accepted 13 July 2012

If the gains of the green revolution relative to population have been negated, challenges for the agricultural sector remain. There is necessity for more: more cereals for biofuel, more grain for meat, more food for the additional 2 billion people expected by 2050; and as these demands mount, available resources are becoming strained, with less arable land, less water for irrigation and less energy for fertilizer production. Additional emerging constraints include the need to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, desires to foster biodiverse landscapes and regions, ongoing degradation of soil and other natural resources, and the rising cost of agricultural

4097

This journal is q 2012 The Royal Society


L. H. Ziska et al.

Review. Crop adaptation by CO2 selection 373 µmol mol–1 CO2

140 120

3

avg. = 53.8 ± 17

100 80

2

60 1 % increase in population % increase in cereal production 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 year

Figure 1. Average change by decade (i.e. 1960s, 1970s, etc.)+s.e., in per cent growth of eight basic cereals (barley, corn, millet, oat, rice, rye, sorghum, wheat) as directly consumed by the human population (i.e. not used for biofuels or animal feed) and the average change by decade in per cent population growth. Gains in cereal production over population represent the ‘green revolution’ of the 1960s. Around 2003, net per cent gains in cereals and those in population were roughly equivalent, and the green revolution ended. Data are from Food and Agriculture Organization statistics, available at http://faostat.fao.org/site/345/default.aspx.

inputs [1]. This environmental uncertainty is paralleled by food insecurity with both food prices and volatility at record levels. As multi-factor pressures on food supply and distribution become more evident, the need for agricultural adaptation becomes immediate and germane. Agricultural adaptation is multi-faceted, and should include a number of on-farm strategies related to planting times, irrigation, fertilizer, disease and pest management, shifting crop zones, etc., as well as off-farm strategies across the value chain dealing with non-production aspects of food security [2]. However, the adaptive focus here will be to show that plant selection and/or breeding can exploit one of the most predictable anthropogenic changes: the global increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Although global and national assessments on the interaction between anthropogenic climate change and food production have been conducted [3,4], none have systematically examined intraspecific yield variability to atmospheric CO2 within a crop species as an adaptive factor in maintaining food security. 2. THE RESPONSE OF CROPS TO RISING CO2: ASSESSING POTENTIAL At biologically relevant temperatures, it is recognized that there are four abiotic resources necessary for plant growth to occur: (i) light; (ii) nutrients; (iii) water; and (iv) CO2. Because approximately 93 per cent of all plant species currently lack optimal levels of CO2 for photosynthesis (i.e. those plants with the C3 photosynthetic pathway), the anthropogenically driven increase in global atmospheric CO2 represents an increase in an available growth resource. Since 1959, concentrations of atmospheric CO2have increased from 318 to 395 mmol mol21, and, depending on anthropogenic emission rates, may exceed 1000 mmol mol21 by the end of the century [1]. Increases in CO2 concentration have been shown in numerous studies Proc. R. Soc. B (2012)

seed yield per plant (g)

average decadenal percentage change

4098

40 20 0 140

avg. = 82.3 ± 23

664 µmol mol–1 CO2

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 rice cultivars

Figure 2. Average seed yield per plant (+s.e.) for 17 different rice lines from diverse geographical locations at either ambient (373 mmol mol21) or elevated (664 mmol mol21) atmospheric CO2. Data were obtained from the 1990s from field experiments conducted at the International Rice Research Institute and are reported in Ziska et al. [6].

to increase carbon fixation with subsequent effects on plant growth, development, morphology and reproduction [5]. While differences between plant species in response to global increases in CO2 are to be expected [5], a more pertinent adaptation question is: what is the extent of CO2 stimulation among genotypes of a crop species? Is there sufficient genetic variation for breeders to begin selections for CO2 responsiveness with respect to reproduction and seed yield? An evaluation of 17 cultivated rice lines at ambient and 660 mmol mol21 CO2 [6], the largest intraspecific crop comparison made to date, indicated that there was considerable genetic variation among yield in response to projected increases in atmospheric CO2 (figure 2). That is, there was evidence suggesting that not all cultivars of rice were currently adapted to the present CO2 concentration or equally responsive to elevated CO2. Additional studies have confirmed that there is significant intraspecific variation in the yield response to elevated CO2 among cowpea (Vigna unguiculata, L., Walp.) [7], common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [8], rice (Oryza sativa L.) [9,10], wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) [11] and soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) [12], such that breeders could begin to select for CO2 responsiveness among currently available germplasm. However, as noted by Newton & Edwards [13], these data do not necessarily reflect any long-term benefit of CO2 selection because it is unclear whether the plant germplasm being evaluated was necessarily adapted to the higher CO2 concentration. A better test of adaptation would be to evaluate genotypes or populations at high CO2 over multiple seasons as a means to simulate the


Review. Crop adaptation by CO2 selection benefits of plant breeding in the resulting progeny. Unfortunately, there are few multi-generational evaluations of any agronomic crop to projected CO2 levels [14]. An additional line of research that may be indicative of CO2 adaptation is the long-term temporal selection of plant populations around natural CO2 springs [15]. Because these populations have been grown at supraambient CO2 concentrations over evolutionarily relevant time spans, they should provide a source of CO2 adapted material. Newton et al. [16] examined populations of Dactylis glomerata isolated from ambient and elevated CO2 environments and determined that the main selection pressure was from atmospheric CO2 [17]. Furthermore, when these populations were tested in the short-term under elevated CO2 conditions, the high-CO2 adapted population produced 30 per cent more biomass relative to the ambient CO2 population [18]. Recent data for a perennial herb (Plantago asiatica) grown for multi-generations across a natural CO2 gradient also show greater evolutionary fitness, including high relative growth rates, at elevated compared with ambient CO2 concentrations [19]. The data for D. glomerata [13,18] indicate that this species increased its biomass by 0.28 per cent for every mmol mol21 increase in CO2. From 2000 to 2009, the mean CO2 growth rate was 2 mmol mol21 CO2 per year, or a potential increase in biomass of 5.6 per cent per decade. This agrees well with the average decadenal increase in forage yield that has already occurred from US breeding programmes for this species (approx. 4.5%) [20]. In summary, there appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest that (i) intraspecific variability exists among crop genotypes to begin selection for yield responses to increasing CO2, and (ii) breeding efforts could be a means to increase plant yields in the long-term as has been observed for multi-generational plants growing proximate to CO2 springs.

3. ARE NOT BREEDERS ALREADY SELECTING FOR CO2 RESPONSIVENESS? There are, at present, no published records of any methodical, long-term attempts for the selection of crop lines with greater yield responsiveness to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2. The reasons for the paucity of data on this issue are unclear. It may reflect, in part, the gradual increase in atmospheric CO2, and the assumption that empirical selection for increasing crop yield will, in a managed environment, choose the most CO2-responsive plants over time [21]. Alternatively, it may reflect the difficulty in quantifying CO2 impacts because any stimulation effects on growth or yield would be difficult to separate from the rapid genetic, technological and management progress that has coincided with the green revolution [22]. Nevertheless, if breeders are already, in effect, passively selecting the most CO2-responsive cultivars, there is little need to initiate any active CO2 breeding programme. While this may be difficult to determine for future CO2 levels, it may be possible to assess for recent increases by comparing cultivated lines released in the early- and late twentieth century; i.e. when CO2 rose from approximately 290 to 370 mmol mol21, an increase of 28 per cent. If breeders are selecting for CO2 sensitivity de facto, then as with the CO2 springs experiment; modern, adapted CO2 lines Proc. R. Soc. B (2012)

L. H. Ziska et al.

4099

should show a greater CO2 response when grown at current CO2 levels relative to cultivars that were developed during the early twentieth century. To test this hypothesis, oat cultivars released during the 1920s were compared with lines released during the 1990s from a given breeding site for seven different geographical locations [23]. Because the breeding settings were the same, edaphic and abiotic characteristics should be similar, and not a confounding factor. Because oat has a very low outcrossing rate, it can be reasonably assumed that these lines have not changed genetically since their release. When compared at similar CO2 concentrations, 300 and 400 mmol mol21, i.e. the approximate atmospheric CO2 concentration in the 1920 and the 1990s, respectively, there was no greater relative response observed for the 1990s cultivars relative to those released in the 1920s (figure 3). Indeed, the opposite outcome was observed, with lines released during the 1920s showing a greater relative and diverse response to the twentieth century increase in atmospheric CO2 for all measured parameters (figure 3). Although seed yield was not measured for oats, other data for wheat [11,24,25] indicate a greater relative increase in yield for older cultivars to both recent and projected increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Overall, while additional data are needed, there is no indication that breeders have, in fact, maximized CO2 responsiveness among newer cereal cultivars, even though atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades.

4. THE CASE FOR ACTIVE SELECTION While breeding efforts have made significant increases in crop yields during the twentieth century, it is not clear that these efforts have increased CO2 sensitivity among modern cultivars. The underlying reasons have not been entirely elucidated. At the physiological level, selection for CO2 sensitivity is not likely to happen passively. First, the form of rubisco in present day C3 plants is optimized for an atmospheric CO2 concentration of approximately 220 mmol mol21, and not for the present concentration of 395 mmol mol21 [26]. Rubisco is the enzyme that catalyzes both carboxylation and oxygenation of RuBP, and is critical in controlling the balance between photorespiration and photosynthesis. Zhu et al. [26] have suggested that optimizing rubisco for the current atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase carbon assimilation by 10 per cent per se. Second, it is generally recognized that advances in plant breeding are associated with recurrent selection, usually in field environments. As a consequence, selection for say, pest resistance, should be occurring concurrently with rising CO2, and, as a result, reflect CO2 adaptation. However, plant breeding is a long-term process that can extend over decades, and indirect selection for yield under field conditions is likely to be inefficient because yield is related to a number of abiotic and biotic factors. Re-selection could offer the possibility of adjusting a cultivar to a new CO2 value, but often proprietary rights require that cultivars are maintained in their original genotypic condition; (i.e. a 1980 genotype remains the same


4100

L. H. Ziska et al.

Review. Crop adaptation by CO2 selection 1920s

1.75 1.50

X = 1.15 ± 0.05

1990s X = 1.04 ± 0.03

leaf area

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0 1.75

tillers (E – A)/(A)

1.50

X = 121 ± 0.10

X = 0.94 ± 0.03

X = 129 ± 0.08

X = 1.16 ± 0.03

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0 1.75

biomass

1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0 ‘old’

‘new’

Figure 3. The average relative stimulation (+s.e.) in vegetative characteristics of cultivated oat (Avena sativa) from seed released in the 1920s (old) and the 1990s (new) for seven geographical locations for an increase in approximately 100 mmol mol21 CO2 (i.e. the increase in atmospheric (CO2) from the 1920s (‘A’) to the 1990s (‘E’)). Relative stimulation was calculated as (E 2 A)/(A) for a given location; with a value of 1 (dashed line) indicating no difference. These data were taken from Ziska & Blumenthal [23].

genotype sold in 2010) [13]. Interestingly, a recent study examining 30 years of yield trials with IR 8, one of the original ‘green revolution’ rice cultivars, indicated a 15 per cent loss in yield relative to yields achieved in the 1960s, emphasizing the need for maintenance breeding as a means to adapt to changing climates (e.g. CO2) [27]. Last, it has been hypothesized that, with the onset of the green revolution, greater emphasis was placed on genetic uniformity as a means to maintain economic consistency in response to water and fertilizer, particularly among large-scale farms [28]. Such uniformity in management may, in turn, limit the extent of genetic variation in response to environmental changes, such as CO2 [29]. The comparison of early- and late twentieth century oat lines (figure 3) was consistent with this later hypothesis as the more recently released oat cultivars showed greater uniformity among vegetative and reproductive traits [23]. Overall, these examples are strong arguments in favour of active intervention in breeding for higher CO2 concentrations to improve yield responses, and suggest that Proc. R. Soc. B (2012)

opportunities for increasing production will be missed if we assume that current selections will result in crop plants that are optimized to the current CO2 concentration.

5. INITIATING A CO2 SELECTION PROGRAMME: CHALLENGES Presently, there is sufficient empirical evidence to advocate that substantial increases in crop production could be achieved by considering the most certain of anthropogenic climate changes—the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration [30]. Although preliminary, the available data suggest that, at current and projected increases in atmospheric CO2, substantive increases in crop yields could be achieved by either active selection or development of plant material responsive to a higher CO2 environment. Yet, in spite of the widely acknowledged need to increase agricultural productivity, systematic attempts to exploit CO2 as a means to increase crop yields are very limited. This seems surprising, particularly because atmospheric CO2 has increased rapidly in recent decades


Review. Crop adaptation by CO2 selection (e.g. 11% since 1990) [31]. Indeed, one could argue that if other abiotic resources had increased to a similar extent in so short a period (e.g. imagine an increase in global soil nitrogen by 11% since 1990), there would be a widespread agronomic impetus to begin an active breeding programme to optimize that resource. (a) Methodology One of the obvious technical challenges is to simulate future CO2 and/or climatic conditions for a large number of cultivars in order to begin the screening process. From a methodological viewpoint, maintaining control of CO2 (or any abiotic variable) becomes more difficult with increases in physical size, and hence the number of lines that can be screened at a given time may be limited. Although cultivar screening has not been specifically addressed, large-scale (300 m2) evaluations of elevated CO2 have been achieved using openair CO2 fumigation, or free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) technology [32]. However, rapidly fluctuating CO2 concentrations within elevated FACE rings, or lack of night-time exposure to elevated CO2 concentrations, may underestimate the fertilization effect of enriched CO2 on plant growth [33,34]. Conversely, other studies using smaller enclosures (e.g. greenhouses) to enrich CO2 have consistent CO2 delivery, but will differ significantly from in situ conditions [35]. In general, the cost and complexity of methodologies to accurately simulate future climatic conditions increases with spatial and temporal extremes [36]. As a consequence, most of what is currently known concerning rising CO2, and plant function is at the level of single leaves or whole plants. These levels of organization represent the most experimentally accessible data, while less is known for either very large (e.g. ecosystem) or very small (e.g. genetic regulation, proteomics) bioprocesses. (b) Selection criteria In spite of hundreds of studies that have documented the biological response of plant species to rising CO2, there is no clear consensus on what phenological, morphological and/or physiological characteristics are associated with cultivar selection for yield response as a function of atmospheric CO2. There have been a number of suggestions at different organismal levels that could mediate the CO2 response, including genetic (e.g. carbohydrate regulation of RNA) [37], biochemical (e.g. rubsico activase) [38], leaf (e.g. stomatal density [39] or photosynthesis [8]), whole plant (relative growth rate) [40], management (e.g. planting density) [41] and canopy (e.g. nitrogen applications) [42], but specific organismal characteristics consistently associated with CO2 responsiveness and crop yield have not been identified. Without a clear set of indices, breeders will have a difficult time selecting or developing promising crop archetypes. (c) Scaling up of biological responses Recent decades have seen many genomic and molecular innovations that have been widely viewed as increasing the precision of genetic transfer and hastening the release of new cultivars. However, as emphasized by Sinclair et al. [43], responses at the molecular level do not necessarily scale to greater yield in situ. This is particularly relevant Proc. R. Soc. B (2012)

L. H. Ziska et al.

4101

for increases in atmospheric CO2; i.e. how to develop higher seed yields in the field based on CO2 induced increases in the photosynthetic rate of single leaves or whole plants in the laboratory. This is an obvious challenge for crop breeding efforts. (d) Interactions with other climatic variables Carbon dioxide is not just the source of carbon for photosynthesis, but a longwave-radiation trapping gas, with consequences for surface temperatures and precipitation, climatic variables that will also affect crop productivity. Temperatures, particularly temperatures during anthesis, may be critical in maintaining crop productivity [44]. Initial assessments based on photosynthetic biochemistry suggested a positive interaction between projected increases in temperature and CO2 on yield [45]. However, it is now clear that such positive interactions do not always translate into additional seed yield with simultaneous increases in CO2 and temperature as opposed to elevated CO2 per se [46–48]. In contrast to CO2 and temperature interactions, there are a number of studies indicating that under water-limited conditions the indirect effect of CO2 on stomatal aperture (and potential reductions in transpirational water use) may enhance the relative effect of CO2 on crops [49,50], although this effect may be reduced at the canopy relative to the whole leaf level [51]. In any case, a fundamental challenge will be to consider CO2 selections for their performance in a range of temperature and moisture conditions to assess potential negative interactions with respect to yield. Such selections will, by necessity, include an evaluation of multiple-gene responses. (e) Seed quality Reductions in nitrogen and protein content have been observed in a number of CO2-response studies for a wide range of agronomic crops [52]. A significant challenge for CO2 responsiveness will be to impose selection pressure or co-develop suitable management practices that will maintain desired quality and nutritional parameters. 6. CO2 SELECTION: MEETING THE CHALLENGES Screenings for yield response to elevated CO2 within a given crop species will necessitate evaluations of diverse germplasm and/or phenotypes, preferably under in situ climatic conditions and agronomic practices. Suitably located FACE facilities could provide for simultaneous screening of a large number of crop lines in this regard; however, in addition to concerns regarding temporal consistency of CO2 fumigation, average plot size within FACE systems can be small from 1 to 5 m2 [53,54], in part, because of edge effects near the ring. In addition, CO2 supply costs would be considerable because continuous selection over several years would be required to develop lines sensitive to high CO2. It is possible that new FACE prototypes [55,56] could increase CO2 uniformity and reduce supply costs. However, at present, it will be necessary, particularly if screening is to occur in developing countries of crop origin (e.g. regions with poor infrastructure), to derive technologically simple and inexpensive screening methods that can identify promising crop genotypes that can respond strongly to CO2. There may, in fact, be a number of straightforward approaches in this regard, from initial screening of yield


4102

L. H. Ziska et al.

Review. Crop adaptation by CO2 selection

responses of plants in greenhouses or CO2 concentration gradient tunnels prior to field testing [57], to using agronomic parameters as a guide to CO2 responsiveness [41,58]. Alternatively, if a larger area is needed for a more traditional agronomic approach to screening, it may be possible to exploit urban to rural micro-climatic transects. Such a regional transect was used to study succession of plant communities, and showed constant increases in both CO2 and temperature over a 5-year period for the urban (relative to the rural) area, consistent with short-term Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections in global climate change [59,60]. While it can be argued that urban environments have other abiotic parameters that can affect crop growth (such as soil differences, controlled in the earlier-mentioned studies), the cumulative urban environment may also reflect many of the predicted abiotic parameters associated with anthropogenic climate change (e.g. nitrogen deposition, temperature, ozone). Other innovative approaches to simulate elevated CO2 environments for screening, such as generating CO2 from biogas, or exploiting existing CO2 springs, should also be considered, particularly in developing countries where expensive and sophisticated facilities may not always be available. If the physical facilities for screening germplasm can be made accessible over the long-term, then trait selection for CO2 sensitivity at different organismal levels can be elucidated. As is clear from the large number of published reports, it seems unlikely that there is one set of criteria associated with CO2 responsiveness. Hence, it is worthwhile to use multiple strategies to discover specific CO2 sensitive traits. Such strategies can range from the straightforward (such as comparative experiments involving isolines [61]; to biochemical approaches such as appropriate selection of carboxylases [62]) to sophisticated, stateof-the-art screening tools that use high-throughput genomics, quantitative genetics, molecular breeding and bioinformatics [63]. Such tools have made progress in detecting elevated CO2-responsive quantitative trait loci associated with yield in rice [64]. Traditional breeding, especially for increased harvest index, could be of particular benefit as it would test the absolute, and not relative, yield response to increasing CO2 [19]. Application of models that can identify phenotypic traits with markerassisted selection may provide a useful tool to identify higher yields associated with increased CO2 and other likely anthropogenic changes [65]. Another, under used approach with potential promise may simply be a direct comparison of genetic, morphological, physiological and phenological traits of plant species that have adapted evolutionarily to natural CO2 springs compared with plants from ambient CO2 at similar edaphic and abiotic comparisons Once identified, it will be necessary to test any CO2 selections for interactions with other climatic parameters likely to change, particularly temperature and water availability. For example, there is considerable variability among rice cultivars in their responses to temperature and CO2, leading to the possibility of selecting cultivars with increased yield and/or yield stability when produced under an elevated temperature and CO2 environment [66]. Other interactions also need to be examined in greater detail, particularly soil characteristics that relate to nutrition and/or endophytic parameters that may be Proc. R. Soc. B (2012)

of adaptive benefit for atmospheric CO2, or abiotic stresses (e.g. temperature) [67,68]. Plant environmental responses are often determined by their associations with microorganisms such as rhizobia and endophytes (e.g. the ‘extended phenotype’) [69]. This has also been observed for CO2 responses [70]; for example, Betrand et al. [71] found that CO2 stimulated photosynthesis and nitrogenase activity increased the nutritive value of alfalfa (Medicago sativa), but these responses were associated with a specific plant– rhizobium complex. Additional studies with soybean have shown the benefits for co-selection of rhizobia and plants for CO2 responsiveness [72], suggesting that selection for CO2 responsiveness would benefit if done at the level of the extended phenotype. Given economic resource constraints, which crop species should be a priority in CO2 selection for food security? Corn, a C4 species, is unlikely to respond significantly to rising CO2 because the C4 photosynthetic pathway is at near saturation at current CO2 levels; and soybean, while important economically is only a minor caloric source globally. At present, rice and wheat are the dominant source of calories for the bulk of the human population (533 and 530 kcal capita21 day21, respectively) [73] and are obvious candidates for CO2 selection. However, other C3 crops that are important from a calorific standpoint would include potatoes, cassava and sweet potatoes. Unfortunately, relative to wheat and rice, fewer CO2 studies have been conducted on these root crops. When should a ‘high’ CO2 cultivar be released? Selection of plants that perform better under elevated CO2 may produce plant material that also does better at current CO2 levels. However, it is also possible that greater CO2 sensitivity lines will only outperform current cultivars at some future date (e.g. D. glomerata) [13]. Consequently, cultivar releases should be made in consideration with the appropriate future CO2 concentration. 7. CONCLUSIONS: CLIMATE CHANGE, GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY AND CO2 SELECTION: THE NEED IS NOW To meet the challenge of maintaining food security, agriculture must adapt quickly. And while there are a myriad of strategies for doing so, one of the most opportune is to take advantage of the additional CO2 that is being put into the Earth’s atmosphere. However, developing and identifying new crop lines that are more responsive to CO2 will take time (typically 7–14 years). It will also require a willingness to look beyond reductionist approaches; to initiate an intensive collaborative effort between molecular scientists and traditional breeders, between physiologists and agronomists, between bioinformatic specialists and modellers, between university and corporate interests, among farmers, industry, governments and civil society. These efforts, or course, will not be a complete solution to the issue of climate change and food security; however, adaptation to rising CO2 remains one of the simplest research strategies to ensure that global food security can be maintained in lieu of the anthropogenic stresses likely to be experienced for the remainder of the twenty-first century. The authors thank Dr Achim Doberman for his comments and suggestions. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programmes and


Review. Crop adaptation by CO2 selection activities on the basis of race, colour, national origin, age, disability and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.

16

17

REFERENCES 1 IPCC 2007 Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC Secretariat. 2 Ingram, J. S. I., Ericksen, P. J. & Liverman, D. M. (eds) 2010 Food security and global environmental change. London, UK: Earthscan. 3 Gregory, P. J., Ingram, J. S. I. & Breklacich, M. 2005 Climate change and food security. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 2139–2148. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1745) 4 Lobell, D. B., Burke, M. B., Rebaldi, C., Mastrandrea, M. D., Falcon, W. P. & Naylor, R. L. 2008 Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610. (doi:10.1126/science.1152339) 5 Kimball, B. A. 1983 Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield: an assemblage and analysis of 430 prior observations. Agron. J. 75, 779–788. (doi:10.2134/ agronj1983.00021962007500050014x) 6 Ziska, L. H., Manalo, P. A. & Ordonez, R. A. 1996 Intraspecific variation in the response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to increased CO2 and temperature: growth and yield response of 17 cultivars. J. Exp. Bot. 47, 1353–1359. (doi:10.1093/jxb/47.9.1353) 7 Ahmed, F. E., Hall, A. E. & Madore, M. A. 1993 Interactive effects of high temperature and elevated carbon dioxide concentration on cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Plant, Cell Environ. 16, 835 –842. (doi:10. 1111/j.1365-3040.1993.tb00505.x) 8 Bunce, J. A. 2008 Contrasting responses of seed yield to elevated carbon dioxide under field conditions within Phaseolus vulgaris. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 128, 219 –234. (doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.06.003) 9 Moya, T. B., Ziska, L. H., Namuco, O. S. & Olszyk, D. 1998 Growth dynamics and genotypic variation in tropical, field grown paddy rice (Oryza sativa L.) in response to increasing carbon dioxide and temperature. Glob. Change Biol. 4, 645 –656. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486. 1998.00180.x) 10 Baker, J. T. 2003 Yield responses of southern U.S. rice cultivars to CO2 and temperature. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 122, 129–137. (doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2003. 09.012) 11 Mandersheid, R. & Weigel, H. J. 1997 Photosynthetic and growth responses of old and modern spring wheat cultivars to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 64, 65–71. (doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00020-0) 12 Ziska, L. H., Bunce, J. A. & Caulfield, F. S. 2001 Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and seed yield of soybean genotypes. Crop Sci. 41, 385 –391. (doi:10.2135/ cropsci2001.412385x) 13 Newton, P. C. D. & Edwards, G. R. 2007 Plant breeding for a changing environment. In Agroecosystems in a changing climate (eds P. C. D. Newton, R. A. Carran, G. R. Edwards & P. A. Niklaus), pp. 309–319. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. 14 Derner, J. D., Tischler, C. R., Polley, H. W. & Johnson, H. B. 2004 Intergenerational above- and belowground responses of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to elevated CO2. Basic Allied Ecol. 5, 145–152. (doi:10.1078/ 1439-1791-00217) 15 Raschi, A., Miglietta, F., Tognetti, R. & van Gardigen, P. R. 1997 Carbon dioxide springs and their use in Proc. R. Soc. B (2012)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 29

30

L. H. Ziska et al.

4103

biological research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Newton, P. C. D., Bell, C. C. & Clark, H. 1996 Carbon dioxide emissions from mineral springs in Northland and the potential of these sites for studying the effects of elevated carbon dioxide on pastures. NZ J. Agric. Res. 39, 33– 40. (doi:10.1080/00288233.1996.9513160) Ross, D. J., Tate, K. R., Newton, P. C. D., Wilde, R. H. & Clark, H. 2000 Carbon and nitrogen pools and mineralization in a grassland gley soil under elevated carbon dioxide at a natural CO2 spring. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 779 –790. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000. 00357.x) Newton, P. C. D., Clark, H., Edwards, G. R. & Ross, D. J. 2001 Experimental confirmation of ecosystem model predictions comparing transient and equilibrium plant responses to elevated atmospheric CO2. Ecol. Lett. 4, 344 –347. (doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00233.x) Nakamura, I., Onoda, Y., Matsushima, N., Yokoyama, J., Kawata, M. & Hikosaka, K. 2011 Phenotypic and genetic differences in a perennial herb across a natural gradient of CO2 concentration. Oecologia 165, 809 –818. (doi:10. 1007/s00442-010-1900-1) Casler, M. D., Fales, S. L., McElroy, A. R., Hall, M. H., Hoffman, L. D. & Leath, K. T. 2000 Genetic progress from 40 years of orchard grass breeding in North America measured under hay management. Crop Sci. 40, 1019–1025. (doi:10.2135/cropsci2000.4041019x) Lawlor, D. W. & Mitchell, R. A. C. 2000 Crop ecosystem responses to climatic change: wheat. In Climate change and global crop productivity (eds K. R. Reddy & H. F. Hodges), pp. 57–81. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Amthor, J. S. 1998 Perspective on the relative insignificance of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration to crop yield. Field Crops Res. 58, 109 –127. (doi:10.1016/ S0378-4290(98)00089-6) Ziska, L. H. & Blumenthal, D. M. 2007 Empirical selection of cultivated oat in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. Crop Sci. 47, 1547– 1552. (doi:10.2135/ cropsci2006.09.0616) Mayeux, H. S., Johnson, H. B., Polley, H. W. & Malone, S. R. 1997 Yield of wheat across a sub-ambient carbon dioxide gradient. Glob. Change Biol. 3, 269 –278. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.1997.00074.x) Ziska, L. H. 2008 Three-year field evaluation of early and late 20th century spring wheat cultivars to projected increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Field Crops Res. 108, 54–59. (doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2008.03.006) Zhu, X. G., Portis Jr, A. R. & Long, S. P. 2004 Would transformation of C3 crop plants with foreign rubisco increase productivity? A computational analysis extrapolating from kinetic properties to canopy photosynthesis. Plant, Cell Environ. 27, 155 –165. (doi:10.1046/j.13653040.2004.01142.x) Peng, S. B., Huang, J., Cassman, K. G., Laza, R. C., Visperas, R. M. & Khush, G. S. 2010 The importance of maintenance breeding: a case study of the first miracle rice variety: IR8. Field Crops Res. 110, 342 –347. (doi:10. 1016/j.fcr.2010.08.003) Doyle, J. 1985 Altered harvest: agriculture, genetics and the fate of the world’s food supply. New York, NY: Viking Press. Treharne, K. 1989 The implications of the ‘greenhouse effect’ for fertilizers and agrochemicals. In The greenhouse effect and UK agriculture (ed. R. C. Bennet), pp. 67– 78. UK: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Allen, M. R., Frame, D. J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C. D., Lowe, J. A., Meinshausen, M. & Meinshausen, N. 2009 Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tone. Nature 458, 1163– 1166. (doi:10.1038/nature08019)


4104

L. H. Ziska et al.

Review. Crop adaptation by CO2 selection

31 NOAA 2011 See ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/ co2_annmean_mlo.txt (accessed January 2012). 32 Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. 2005 What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol. 165, 351 –372. (doi:10. 1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x) 33 Holtum, J. A. M. & Winter, K. 2003 Photosynthetic CO2 uptake in seedlings of two tropical tree species exposed to oscillating elevated concentrations of CO2. Planta 218, 152– 158. (doi:10.1007/s00425-0031089-1) 34 Bunce, J. A. 2005 Seed yield of soybeans with daytime or continuous elevation of carbon dioxide under field conditions. Photosynthetica 43, 435– 438. (doi:10.1007/ s11099-005-0069-z) 35 Tubiello, F. N., Soussana, J.-F. & Howden, S. M. 2007 Crop and pasture response to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19 686–19 690. (doi:10.1073/ pnas.0701728104) 36 Ziska, L. H. & Bunce, J. A. 2007 Predicting the impact of changing CO2 on crop yields: some thoughts on food. New Phytol. 175, 607–618. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137. 2007.02180.x) 37 Sheen, J. 1994 Feedback control of gene expression. Photosyn. Res. 39, 427– 438. (doi:10.1007/BF00014596) 38 Sage, R. F. & Coleman, J. R. 2001 Effects of low atmospheric CO2 on plants: more than a thing of the past. Trends Plant Sci. 6, 18–24. (doi:10.1016/S1360-1385 (00)01813-6) 39 Ward, J. K. & Kelly, J. K. 2004 Scaling up evolutionary responses to elevated CO2: lessons from Arabidopsis. Ecol. Lett. 7, 427 –440. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004. 00589.x) 40 Poorter, H. 1998 Do slow-growing species and nutrientstressed plants respond relatively strongly to elevated CO2? Glob. Change Biol. 4, 693 –697. (doi:10.1046/j. 1365-2486.1998.00177.x) 41 Shimono, H. 2011 Rice genotypes that respond strongly to elevated CO2, also respond strongly to low planting density. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141, 240 –243. (doi:10. 1016/j.agee.2011.02.028) 42 Ziska, L. H., Weerakoon, W., Namuco, O. S. & Pamplona, R. 1996 The influence of nitrogen on the elevated CO2 response in field-grown rice. Austral. J. Plant Physiol. 23, 45–52. (doi:10.1071/PP9960045) 43 Sinclair, T. R., Purcell, L. C. & Sneller, C. H. 2004 Crop transformation and the challenge to increase yield potential. Trends Plant Sci. 9, 70–75. (doi:10.1016/j.tplants. 2003.12.008) 44 Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. 2009 Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 15 594 –15 598. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0906865106) 45 Long, S. P. 1991 Modification of the response of photosynthetic productivity to rising temperature by atmospheric CO2 concentrations: has its importance been underestimated? Plant Cell Environ. 14, 729 –739. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01439.x) 46 Batts, G. R., Ellis, R. H., Morison, J. I. L., Nkemka, P. N., Gregory, P. J. & Hadley, P. 1997 Yield and partitioning in crops of contrasting cultivars of winter wheat in response to CO2 and temperature in field studies using temperature gradient tunnels. J. Agric. Sci. 130, 17–27. (doi:10.1017/S0021859697005017) 47 Matsui, T., Namuco, O. S., Ziska, L. H. & Horie, T. 1997 Effects of high temperature and CO2 concentration on spikelet sterility in Indica rice. Field Crops Res. 51, 213 –221. (doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(96)03451-X) Proc. R. Soc. B (2012)

48 Amthor, J. S. 2001 Effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration on wheat yield: review of results from experiments using various approaches to control CO2 concentration. Field Crops Res. 73, 1 –34. (doi:10.1016/ S0378-4290(01)00179-4) 49 Gifford, R. M. 1979 Growth and yield of CO2-enriched wheat under water limiting conditions. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 6, 367 –78. (doi:10.1071/PP9790367) 50 Lin, J. S. & Wang, G. X. 2002 Doubled CO2 could improve the drought tolerance better in sensitive cultivars than in tolerant cultivars in spring wheat. Plant Sci. 163, 627 –637. (doi:10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00173-5) 51 Bunce, J. A., Wilson, K. B. & Carlson, T. N. 1997 The effect of doubled CO2 on water use by alfalfa and orchard grass: simulating evapotranspiration using canopy conductance measurements. Glob. Change Biol. 3, 81– 87. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.1997.00540.x) 52 Taub, D. R., Miller, B. & Allen, H. 2008 Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 565–575. (doi:10. 1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x) 53 Morgan, P. B., Bollero, G. A., Nelson, R. L., Dohleman, F. G. & Long, S. P. 2005 Smaller than predicted increase in aboveground net primary production and yield of field-grown soybean under fully open-air [CO2] elevation. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 1–10. (doi:10.1111/j. 1529-8817.2003.00895.x) 54 Kim, H. Y., Lieffering, M., Kobayashi, K., Okada, M., Mitchell, M. W. & Gumpertz, M. 2003 Effects of freeair CO2 enrichment and nitrogen supply on the yield of temperate paddy rice crops. Field Crops Res. 83, 261 –270. (doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00076-5) 55 Ainsworth, E. A. et al. 2008 Next generation of elevated [CO2] experiments with crops: a critical investment for feeding the future world. Plant Cell Environ. 31, 1317–1324. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01841.x) 56 Bunce, J. A. 2011 Performance characteristics of an area distributed free air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) system. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 151, 1152–1157. (doi:10. 1016/j.agrformet.2011.04.004) 57 Ziska, L. H. & Bunce, J. A. 2000 Sensitivity of fieldgrown soybean to future atmospheric carbon dioxide: selection for improved productivity in the 21st century. Austral. J. Plant Physiol. 27, 979 –984. 58 Shimono, H., Okada, M., Yamakawa, Y., Nakamura, H., Kobayashi, K. & Hasegawa, T. 2009 Genotypic variation in rice yield enhancement by elevated CO2 relates to growth before heading, and not to maturity group. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 523–532. (doi:10.1093/jxb/ ern288) 59 George, K., Ziska, L. H., Bunce, J. A. & Quebedeaux, B. 2007 Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature across an urban-rural transect. Atmos. Environ. 41, 7654–7665. (doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007. 08.018) 60 George, K., Ziska, L. H., Bunce, J. A., Quebedeaux, B., Hom, J. L., Wolf, J. & Teasdale, J. R. 2009 Macroclimate associated with urbanization increases the rate of secondary succession from fallow soil. Oecologia 159, 637 –647. (doi:10.1007/s00442-008-1238-0) 61 Ainsworth, E. A., Rogers, A., Nelson, R. & Long, S. P. 2004 Testing the ‘source-sink’ hypothesis of downregulation of photosynthesis in elevated [CO2] in the field with single gene substitutions in Glycine max. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 122, 85–94. (doi:10.1016/j. agrformet.2003.09.002) 62 Zhu, X. G., Long, S. P. & Ort, D. R. 2010 Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 61, 235– 261. (doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant042809-112206)


Review. Crop adaptation by CO2 selection 63 Munns, R., James, R. A., Sirault, X. R. R., Furbank, R. T. & Jones, H. G. 2010 New phenotyping methods for screening wheat and barley for beneficial responses to water deficit. J. Exp. Bot. 13, 3499– 3507. (doi:10. 1093/jxb/erq199) 64 Fan, G., Xiaocan, L., Qingsheng, C. & Zhu, J. 2008 Detection of elevated CO2 responsive QTLs for yield and its components in rice. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 7, 1707 –1711. 65 Samonte, S. O. P. B., Wilson, L. T., McClung, A. M. & Medley, J. C. 2005 Targeting cultivars onto rice growing environments using AMMI and SREG GGE Biplot analyses. Crop Sci. 45, 2414–2424. (doi:10.2135/ cropsci2004.0627) 66 Baker, J. T. 2004 Yield response of southern US rice cultivars to CO2 and temperature. Agric. Forest Manage. 122, 129 –137. (doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2003.09.012) 67 Marquez, L. M., Redman, R. S., Rodriguez, R. J. & Roossinck, M. J. 2007 A virus in a fungus in a plant: three-way symbiosis required for thermal tolerance. Science 315, 513– 515. (doi:10.1126/science.1136237) 68 Redman, R. S., Kim, Y. O., Woodward, C. J. D. A., Greer, C., Espino, L., Doty, S. L. & Rodriguez, R. J. 2011 Increased fitness of rice plants to abiotic stress via habitat adapted symbiosis: a strategy for mitigating

Proc. R. Soc. B (2012)

69

70

71

72

73

L. H. Ziska et al.

4105

impacts of climate change. PLoS ONE 6, 1 –10. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014823) Whitham, T. G. et al. 2003 Community and ecosystem genetics: a consequence of the extended phenotype. Ecology 84, 559–573. (doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003) 084[0559:CAEGAC]2.0.CO;2) Compant, S., Der, Van, Heijden, M. G. A. & Sessitsch, A. 2010 Climate change effects on beneficial plantmicroorganism interactions. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 73, 197 –214. (doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00900.x) Bertrand, A., Prevost, D., Bigras, F., Lalande, R., Trenblay, G., Castonguay, G. & Belanger, G. 2007 Alfalfa response to elevated atmospheric CO2 varies with the symbiotic rhizobial strain. Plant Soil 301, 173 –187. (doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9436-9) Bertrand, A., Prevost, D., Juge, C. & Chalifour, F.-P. 2011 Impact of elevated CO2 on carbohydrate and ureide concentrations in soybean inoculated with different strains of Bradyrhizobium japonicum. Botany 89, 481 –490. (doi:10.1139/b11-034) Borlaug, N. E. & Dowswell, C. R. 2004 Prospects for world agriculture in the twenty first century. In Agriculture and the international rice –wheat system (eds R. Lal, P. R. Hobbs, N. Uphoff & D. O. Hansen), pp. 1 –18. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Publishing.