ArticleBMC plant biology2026
Adaptive photosynthetic in drought-resistant and susceptible Jerusalem artichoke genotypes under elevated CO₂ and light intensity during drought stress.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnder elevated (relative to ambient) light intensity and CO₂ levels combined with drought affect photosynthesis, with responses may be varying between genotypes depending on their drought resistance. Thus, this study aimed to determine the difference of light intensity and CO2 concentration on the photosynthetic traits of Jerusalem artichoke genotypes differing in drought resistance under drought conditions.
resultsThe rising CO₂ concentrations enhanced photosynthetic rate (Pn) and transpiration efficiency (TE), but decreased stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration rate (E) in both genotypes. The highest Pn was observed at 1,000 µmol mol⁻¹ CO₂ for drought-resistant genotype JA 60 and at 1500 µmol mol⁻¹ CO₂ for drought-susceptible genotype KT 2. Additionally, rising photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) levels improved Pn, gs, and E under both water levels, with optimal responses recorded at 2500 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹ PPFD for both genotypes. In drought-resistant genotype, TE increased with rising PPFD up to 1500 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹ while the drought-susceptible genotype peaked at 1000 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹, after which TE declined under drought. The drought-resistant genotype demonstrated more efficient stomatal regulation, higher photosynthetic capacity, greater transpiration efficiency and better maintenance of leaf area and biomass under drought stress, whereas the susceptible genotype showed weaker control over these physiological and growth-related traits.
conclusionDrought-tolerant JA 60 and drought-sensitive KT 2 exhibited contrasting physiological strategies. JA 60 maintained consistently high Pn, gs, and E across all CO₂ and light conditions and retained leaf area and biomass under drought, whereas KT 2 showed reduced photosynthesis and greater declines in leaf area and biomass under drought conditions, but showed higher TE. Despite these differences, both genotypes displayed common responses, including decreased gs under elevated CO₂, enhanced TE during water stress, and increased Pn with higher light intensity. The strong performance of JA 60 under combined stresses suggests its suitability for cultivation in water-limited environments, whereas the water-saving strategies of KT 2 provide valuable insights for breeding programs aimed at enhancing TE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.