Plant plasticity in the face of climate change – CO2offsetting effects to warming and water deficit in wheat. A review

Plant plasticity in the face of climate change – CO2 offsetting effects to warming and water deficit in wheat. A review | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search Confirmatory Results Plant plasticity in the face of climate change – CO 2 offsetting effects to warming and water deficit in wheat. A review View ORCID Profile Meije Gawinowski , Karine Chenu , Jean-Charles Deswarte , Marie Launay , Marie-Odile Bancal doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.10.637370 Meije Gawinowski 1 Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR Ecosys , 91120 Palaiseau, France 2 Arvalis – Institut du végétal, Villiers-le-Bâcle , France Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Meije Gawinowski For correspondence: meije.gawinowski{at}inrae.fr Karine Chenu 3 The University of Queensland, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) , 5391 Warrego Hwy, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Jean-Charles Deswarte 2 Arvalis – Institut du végétal, Villiers-le-Bâcle , France Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Marie Launay 4 INRAE, AgroClim , 84914 Avignon, France Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Marie-Odile Bancal 1 Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR Ecosys , 91120 Palaiseau, France Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Preview PDF Abstract Future crop production will depend on plant plasticity in response to increases in atmospheric CO 2 , mean temperature, heatwave and drought events. The present review intends to highlight the impact of interactions between high CO 2 levels, warming and water deficit in existing published experimental data in the case of wheat. To do so, we identified experiments quantifying the effects of such interactions on traits related to crop productivity and water use. We used the collected data to estimate plasticity indices assessing compensation and interaction between elevated CO2 and adverse climatic conditions, bringing a new perspective on the matter. In the studied data, even though there is an important variability, we found that crop productivity tends to decrease despite the positive effects of the rise in CO 2 concentration. Conversely, with elevated CO 2 , water consumption tends to decrease despite the warmer conditions. We hypothesized that the positive effect of CO 2 on crop productivity is greater under drought conditions, which is confirmed in 54% of the experiments. This review highlights the need to acquire further experimental data under possible future conditions to calibrate and validate crop models: their range of validity requires more thorough testing under the wide range of projected environmental conditions. 1. Introduction 1.1. Phenotypic plasticity under climate change Anthropogenic activities increase carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentration, with a documented rise from 340 to 415 ppm between 1980 and 2020. Future projections range between 540 and 1300 ppm by the end of the century, with a concomitant rise in mean global temperature by up to +4°C ( Calvin et al., 2023 ). This increase in temperature will lead to shifts in climate patterns ( IPCC, 2014 ). Extreme climatic events, such as heatwaves and droughts, are likely to increase in frequency and severity in many cropping areas, posing a growing threat to natural and agricultural ecosystems, particularly when they occur together as combined events ( Zscheischler et al., 2018 ). Plants are sessile organisms; therefore, phenotypic plasticity, defined here as the phenotypic variation in traits in response to the environment ( Hallgrimsson et al., 2019 ), is crucial to their adaptation to varying environmental conditions such as climate change. Plant plasticity to environmental variation assessed by experiments is often limited to the combination of stress modalities and cultural practices. This experimental approach can be expanded by soil-crop modeling (e.g. Chenu et al., 2017 ; Asseng et al., 2019 ). However, issues have been raised regarding the accuracy of these models to predict response to future environmental conditions, such as overestimation of CO 2 effects or under-estimation of combined heat and drought stresses ( Chenu et al., 2017 ; Ahmed et al., 2019 ). To improve the validity of crop models in the context of climate change, it is hence necessary to better understand the quantitative effects of environmental variables and their interactions. The main objective of this review is to investigate plasticity to such environmental interactions based on published experimental data. Our analysis provides a synthetic overview of the collected data in order to answer three main questions: What are the quantitative impacts on (i) productivity-related traits and (ii) water-related traits from elevated CO 2 combined with warm temperatures, heatwaves and/or water deficit? (iii) Is the fertilizing effect of CO 2 stronger under stressed than non-stressed conditions? Plant plasticity to a single environmental factor was widely studied for elevated CO 2 (eCO 2 ) levels (e.g. Ainsworth and Long, 2021 ), high temperatures (i.e. an increase in mean daily temperature), heatwaves (e.g. Farooq et al., 2011 ) and water deficit (e.g. Vadez et al., 2024 ). When plant resources (e.g. CO 2 , water) and growth drivers (e.g. temperature, water) vary outside of their optimal range, they induce stress (e.g. water deficit or excess, heat or cold). A biological stress is defined as a “change in the environment that might reduce or adversely change plant growth or development” ( Levitt, 1972 ; Salisbury and Ross, 1992 ). Both (i) heat stress, caused by high mean temperatures, hot days, warm nights and/or heatwaves, and (ii) drought stress, caused by soil and/or atmospheric water deficits, are major abiotic stresses known to impair plant growth. 1.2. Wheat plasticity in response to key environmental variables This section describes the separate effects of elevated CO 2 , high temperatures, heatwaves and water deficit with a focus on wheat as one of the major crops delivering calories worldwide ( Cassidy et al., 2013 ). Stress impacts on key processes are summarized in Figure 1 . Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1 Conceptual model of wheat plasticity showing the different shapes of response curves to single environmental factors, i.e. elevated CO 2 (eCO 2 , green, see subsection 1.2.1), warming (red, see subsection 1.2.2) through high temperatures (HT) or heatwaves (HW) and water deficit (WD, blue, see subsection 1.2.3). For most processes, the effect of warming depends on the proximity to optimal temperatures. The two key processes impacted by the three climatic factors are photosynthesis (increased by eCO 2 , decreased by WD and increased or decreased by warming depending on temperature) and transpiration (decreased by eCO 2 and WD, increased by warming). Warming and water deficit also directly impact green area index, grain number, grain size and grain quality, that are also indirectly impacted by eCO 2 . Warming also strongly affects phenology by shortening crop duration. 1.2.1. Wheat plasticity to elevated CO2 Photosynthesis and stomatal conductance are the two main processes displaying plasticity in response to eCO 2 ( Figure 1 ). Unlike in C4 plants, Rubisco in C3 plants is not saturated in CO 2 ( Long et al., 2004 ), so photosynthesis can be stimulated by elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration (eCO 2 ). Hence in the absence of stress, eCO 2 in C3 plants increases biomass, tillering, leaf area, yield components and ultimately yield ( Figure 1 ; Long et al., 2004 ; Kadam et al., 2014 ). However, eCO 2 does not necessarily enhance N uptake, so increases in biomass accumulation under eCO 2 result in nitrogen dilution ( Högy and Fangmeier, 2008 ) and lower concentrations of nitrogen and protein in grains ( Figure 1 ; Kadam et al., 2014 ). An increase in CO 2 concentration also greatly decreases stomatal conductance and plant transpiration, improving water-use-efficiency (WUE) in crops like wheat ( Li et al., 2023 ). Since the 1980s, the effects of eCO 2 have been studied in pots or in the field, in diverse experimental conditions, including controlled growth chambers, greenhouses, closed-top chambers (CTC), open-top chambers (OTC) and free air CO 2 enrichment experiments (FACE). Enclosure studies (chamber, CTC, OTC) are implemented on a smaller scale and even if some are partially open to the atmosphere, they are not representative of fully open-air conditions compared to FACE studies. These experiments have focused on different biological levels (e.g. organ, plant and canopy levels) and different time scales (e.g. minute, hour, day, crop cycle). In wheat, the results of such experiments were summarized and evaluated in various meta-analyses and reviews ( Ainsworth and Long, 2021 , 2005 ). Overall, increasing CO 2 concentration from 380 to 550 ppm in non-stressful conditions resulted in an average yield gain of +31% in enclosed studies and +13% in FACE studies ( Long et al., 2006 ). Under elevated CO 2 (546-586 ppm) levels, grain protein concentration decreased by 6.3% on average compared to ambient CO 2 across seven FACE experiments at different locations ( Myers et al., 2014 ). For water balance, a 22% decrease in stomatal conductance was reported for an increase in CO 2 concentration from 366 to 567 ppm in C3 species ( Ainsworth and Rogers 2007 ). Even for the effect of CO 2 alone, it is difficult to obtain clear consistent response curves due to the highly diverse conditions used in experimental set up, and the impact that other environmental factors have on crops ( Ainsworth and Long, 2021 ). 1.2.2. Plasticity to warming In this study, we consider two types of temperature effects related to warming: (i) the homogeneous rise in mean temperatures, referred to here as ‘high temperatures’, and (ii) the occurrence of extreme heat stress events, referred to here as ‘heatwaves’, which frequency, duration and intensity are predicted to increase with climate change. Thermal stress results from non-optimal temperatures due to either warming or cold/frost ( Barlow et al., 2015 ). This review only focuses on warming, as this is the principal effect of current climate change ( Collins and Chenu, 2021 ), but increasing average temperatures also increases frost damage in some regions by advancing phenology ( Bai et al., 2022 ; Zheng et al., 2015 ). A homogeneous increase in mean temperatures up to an optimum might increase photosynthetic activity ( Figure 1 ) but can also generate a stress when process-dependent thresholds are exceeded, notably around flowering and grain filling. Heatwaves harm developing plants at all stages by damaging the photosynthetic machinery, reducing tillering, altering pollen, and causing kernel abortion and physiological injuries ( Hunt et al., 2018 ; Parthasarathi et al., 2022 ). Increases in temperature typically result in a shorter growth period ( Girousse et al., 2021 ; Zheng et al., 2012 ), limiting resource acquisition (e.g. light, N, CO 2 ) and biomass production. Heatwaves also cause major yield losses through the disruption of meiosis in pollen, grain abortion, accelerated senescence, lower levels of grain filling, and a loss of assimilate remobilization ( Dolferus, 2014 ; Yahya et al., 2022 ). Sub-optimal temperatures also affect grain quality by increasing grain protein content and altering starch composition ( Kadam et al., 2014 ; Triboi et al., 2006 ). If heatwaves are more studied in terms of daytime temperatures, warm nights also have an important impact by reducing spikelet fertility, decreasing grain number and size ( Farooq et al., 2011 ; Prasad et al., 2008 ). Transpiration is increased under high temperatures as a common cooling strategy which reduces leaf temperature and mitigates the negative effect of heat ( Farooq et al., 2011 ). Hence, temperature affects diverse processes displaying different levels of plasticity during both the vegetative and reproductive phases of plant growth. Temperature effects have been studied in various conditions, in growth cabinets/rooms, greenhouses, heat chambers placed over crops in the field, temperature gradient tunnels and T-FACE (FACE facilities with infrared heaters for temperature variation). However, the effects of temperature can also be studied by modifying sowing date and analyzing the effect of naturally occurring heatwaves, e.g. with heat chambers ( Thistlethwaite et al., 2020 ) or the use of a photoperiod-extension method to synchronize the phenology of plants/genotypes (Ullah et al., 2023, 2024 ). Temperature effects have also been analyzed with historical yield and climate data or simulation studies. Such analyses concluded to a decrease in global wheat yield in response to an increase in global mean temperature of +1°C: −6% in Asseng et al. (2015) with multi-model simulations, −4.1 to −6.4% in Liu et al. (2016) with point or grid based models and regressions on historic data, −6.9% in Ottman et al. (2012) in a field study, −6% in Zhao et al. (2017) from global grid or local point based models, statistical regressions and field-warming experiments. However, the magnitude of this decrease is also dependent on the location, for example the simulation study conducted by Asseng et al. (2011) with APSIM-NWHEAT concluded to a decrease in Australian wheat yields by up to 50% for temperatures of +2°C, mostly attributed to temperatures above 34°C that impacted to increased leaf senescence and grain filling, notably with an additional indirect effect through reduced soil moisture at flowering. However, it is more difficult to generalize the effects of occasional thermal stress like heatwaves ( Ababaei and Chenu, 2020 ; Lobell et al., 2015 ; Ullah et al., 2023b ). Plastic response to heat varies between genotypes ( Ullah et al., 2023a ) as breeding for heat tolerance and avoidance is already performed. Adaptation strategies are also considered, notably with the use of earlier cultivars and/or earlier sowing dates to avoid major stress periods ( Collins and Chenu, 2021 ; Gouache et al., 2012 ). 1.2.3. Plasticity to water deficit Water deficit, arguably the most important abiotic constraint on crop productivity, is defined as a shortage of atmospheric and/or soil water resulting in substantial morphological, biochemical, physiological and molecular changes ( Sallam et al., 2019 ; Vadez et al., 2024 ). During the vegetative period, water deficit decreases leaf elongation and photosynthetic activity ( Leveau et al., 2021 ; Prasad et al., 2011 ) and increases pollen sterility by impairing meiosis ( Ji et al., 2010 ) thus leading to lower rates of grain set ( Figure 1 ). Water deficits during grain filling, which are frequent in many regions ( Chenu et al., 2011 , 2013a ; Chenu, 2015 ), decrease grain size by altering photosynthesis and shortening the grain-filling period through an acceleration of senescence ( Christopher et al., 2016 , 2014 ; Farooq et al., 2009 ). Water deficit can also impair grain quality with reduced grain protein content ( Wan et al., 2022 ) and impaired quality of flour proteins ( Yang et al., 2023 ). Finally, water deficit decreases stomatal conductance and transpiration, thereby increasing water-use efficiency ( Ahmad et al., 2018 ; Chenu et al., 2018 ; Collins et al., 2021 ; Qaseem et al., 2019 ). Drought stress may result from a deficit of soil and/or atmosphere water through a lack of precipitations, low soil moisture and/or high vapor pressure deficit, but their respective effects on plant growth are still misunderstood ( Aguirre et al., 2021 ). Indeed, most studies to date ignore the role of atmospheric water deficit and have only investigated drought stress by decreasing soil water content, either with controlled irrigation ( Schoppach and Sadok, 2012 ; Shazadi et al., 2024 ), by removing rainfall with rainout shelters ( Hoover et al., 2018 ) or by adjusting the water added by irrigation in arid environments ( Wen et al., 2023 ), especially for studies combining water deficit with eCO 2 and/or warming. Plant water relations are greatly impacted by the approach for water restriction ( Puértolas et al., 2017 ), as well as growth conditions in pots or field ( Ogbaga et al., 2020 ). Yield losses due to water deficit vary considerably, depending on the duration and timing of the stress, but also genotype and environmental conditions ( Farooq et al., 2009 ; Prasad et al., 2011 ; Qaseem et al., 2019 ). Cultivars display variability in response to water deficit due to breeding for drought tolerance and avoidance, notably through earliness, efficiency of water uptake, transpiration efficiency, and stay-green traits ( Farooq et al., 2014 ; Rebetzke et al., 2009 ). 1.3. Baseline hypotheses and methodology of this review High CO 2 levels and increases in mean temperatures, heatwaves and water deficit have direct effects on many physiological processes, including two fundamental ones: photosynthesis and stomatal conductance ( Figure 1 ). However, when considered individually, these environmental variables may have opposite effects on plants. Overall, plants will respond to the combinations of all environmental factors, including complex trait-trait and trait-environment interactions ( Slafer et al., 2023 ; Vadez et al., 2024 ). The objective of this review is to summarize and unravel plant responses to combinations of eCO 2 , high temperatures, heatwaves and/or water deficit in crops, focusing on wheat. We used published experimental data to investigate wheat plasticity under such combinations. We focused on (i) productivity-related traits (PRTs), such as yield, plant biomass and photosynthesis per unit area and (ii) water-related traits (WRTs), such as stomatal conductance, transpiration and water use efficiency (WUE). These traits are measured at different scales depending on the studies. The articles included in this analysis are listed and detailed in Tables S1 to S5 . They were identified by searching Web of Science for the following keywords in titles: “wheat”, “CO 2 ”, “temperature”, “heat”, “drought”, “water”, and from the meta-analysis performed by Zhu et al. (2023) . Studies that did not provide exploitable data were excluded. In each study, mean values of productivity and water-related traits were retrieved to compute relative trait variations. Observations specific to an experiment, a stress intensity, a year and a cultivar were averaged over replicates. The extracted data are freely available from the INRAE space of the Recherche Data Gouv repository https://doi.org/10.57745/ZEJIEW . The studied experimental data was used to investigate three questions regarding wheat plasticity in response to interactions between the effects of high CO 2 levels, increases in temperature and water deficit referred to as “future-like” conditions ( Figure 2 ): Focus 1: the variation in a given trait T between (i) current non-limiting conditions, i.e. ambient CO 2 , well-watered conditions and ambient temperature, and (ii) the future-like conditions under eCO 2 , i.e. high temperature, heatwaves, and/or water deficit (WD) combined with eCO 2 . This variation should provide information about the ability of CO 2 increase to compensate for the effects of heat and/or water deficit. It was estimated by calculating a plasticity index Δ [aCO2 × noS] vs [eCO2 × S] (T) defined as the relative difference (%) in the considered trait T between (i) ambient atmospheric CO 2 (aCO 2 ) and no stress (noS; T [aCO2 × noS] ) and (ii) ‘future-like’ elevated CO 2 (eCO2) with a stress (S; T [eCO2 × S] ): This focus is declined for productivity-related traits (PRTs, such as yield, biomass or photosynthesis, F1.1) and for water-related traits (WRTs, such as stomatal conductance, transpiration or WUE, F1.2). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2 Main focuses of the review and definition of key plasticity indices. Brown arrows represent focus F1 investigating the evolution of productivity-related traits (PRTs, F1.1) with Δ [aCO2 × noS] vs [eCO2 × S] (PRT), and water-related traits (WRTs, F1.2) with Δ [aCO2 × noS] vs [eCO2 × S] (WRT) between non-limiting current conditions and future-like conditions. Purple arrows represent focus F2 investigating the interaction between eCO2 and stress on productivity-related traits (F2) with Δ eCO2, [noS] vs [S] (PRT). Focus 2 (F2): the difference in the effect of eCO 2 on crop productivity-related traits (PRT) in non-stressed (noS) and stressed (S) conditions, which should reveal interactions between eCO 2 and stress factors. The following index was calculated to quantify the variation in F2: These three questions were studied for different types of climatic interactions: Combinations of eCO 2 with water deficit (WD, Figure 3 ) F1.1 “How do productivity-related traits (PRTs) in stressed future-like conditions with water deficit (WD) under eCO 2 differ from non-limiting current conditions?” Δ [aCO2 × WW] vs [eCO2 × WD] (PRT) F1.2 “How do water-related traits (WRTs) in stressed future-like conditions with water deficit (WD) under eCO 2 differ from non-limiting current conditions?” Δ [aCO2 × WW] vs [eCO2 × WD] (WRT) F2 “Are the effects of eCO 2 on production-related traits the same under stressed (water deficit, WD) and non-stressed conditions (well-watered, WW)?” Δ CO2, [WW] vs [WD] (PRT) Combinations of eCO 2 with warming through high temperatures (HT) or heatwaves (HW) F1.1 “How do productivity-related traits (PRTs) in stressed future-like conditions with warming (HT or HW) under eCO 2 differ from non-limiting current conditions?” Δ [aCO2 × aT] vs [eCO2 × HT] (PRT) ( Figure 4 ) and Δ [aCO2 × aT] vs [eCO2 × HW] (PRT) ( Figure 5 ) F1.2 “How do water-related traits (WRTs) in stressed future-like conditions with warming (HT or HW) under eCO 2 differ from non-limiting current conditions?” Δ [aCO2 × aT] vs [eCO2 × HT] (WRT) ( Figure S3 ) and Δ [aCO2 × aT] vs [eCO2 × HW] (WRT) ( Figure 5 ) F2 “Are the effects of eCO 2 on production-related traits the same under stressed (warming, HT or HW) and non-stressed conditions (ambient temperature, aT)?” Δ eCO2, [aT] vs [HT] (PRT) ( Figure S4A ) and Δ CO2, [aT] vs [HW] (PRT) ( Figure S4B ) Combinations of eCO 2 with water deficit and warming through high temperatures ( Figure 6 ) or heatwaves ( Figure 7 ) F1.1 “How do productivity-related traits (PRTs) in stressed future-like conditions with water deficit (WD) and warming (HT or HW) under eCO 2 differ from non-limiting current conditions?” Δ [aCO2 × WW × aT] vs [eCO2 × WD × HT] (PRT) and Δ [aCO2 × WW × aT] vs [eCO2 × WD × HW] (PRT) F1.2 “How do water-related traits (WRTs) in stressed future-like conditions with water deficit (WD) and warming (HT or HW) under eCO 2 differ from non-limiting current conditions?” Δ [aCO2 × WW × aT] vs [eCO2 × WD × HT] (WRT) and Δ [aCO2 × WW × aT] vs [eCO2 × WD × HW] (WRT) Download figure Open in new tab Figure 3 Relative reaction norms for the evolution of productivity (F1.1, Δ [aCO2 × WW] vs [eCO2 × WD] (PRT), Eq 1 ) and water-related traits (F1.2, Δ [aCO2 × WW] vs [eCO2 × WD] (WRT), Eq 1 ) as well as CO 2 interaction with water deficit on productivity-related traits (F2, Δ eCO2, [WW] vs [WD] (PRT), Eq 2 ). Productivity traits include biomass and yield variables, water-related traits include stomatal conductance, transpiration and WUE (purple diamonds) variables. Results are presented for different experimental facilities, i.e. chambers, open-top chambers (OTCs) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE). Colors represent different water deficit intensities (ratio of water inputs between treatments, in %) and line types represent different onset timings for drought stress. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Display is limited between −100 and +100% so values beyond are limited to the bounds and the actual values are labelled. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 4 Relative reaction norms for the evolution of productivity (F1.1, Δ [aCO2 × aT] vs [eCO2 × HT ] (PRT), Eq 1 ) under combined eCO 2 and high temperatures. Productivity traits include biomass and yield variables. Results are presented for different experimental facilities, i.e. chambers, open-top chambers (OTCs) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE). Colors represent different temperature increment. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 5 Relative reaction norms for the evolution of productivity (F1.1, Δ [aCO2 × aT] vs [eCO2 × H W] (PRT), Eq 1 ) and water-related traits (F1.2, Δ [aCO2 × aT] vs [eCO2 × HW] (WRT), Eq 1 ) for eCO 2 and heatwaves. Productivity traits include photosynthesis and yield variables, water-related traits include stomatal conductance variables. Results are presented for different experimental facilities, i.e. chambers, open-top chambers (OTCs) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE). Colors represent heatwave temperatures, line types represent different onset timings for heatwaves and point sizes represent the duration of heatwaves. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Display is limited between −100 and +100% so values beyond are limited to the bounds and the actual values are labelled. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 6 Relative reaction norms for the evolution of productivity (F1.1, Δ [aCO2 × WW × aT ] vs [eCO2 × WD ×HT ] (PRT), Eq 1 ) and water-related traits (F1.2, Δ [aCO2 × WW × aT ] vs [eCO2 × WD ×HT ] (WRT), Eq 1 ) for eCO 2 , water deficit and high temperatures. Productivity traits only include yield variables, water-related traits only include stomatal conductance variables. Results are presented for different experimental facilities, i.e. open-top chambers and temperature gradient tunnels (OTC/TGT) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE). Colors represent different water deficit intensities (ratio of water inputs between treatments, in %), point sizes represent different temperature increments and line types represent the onset of stress. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 7 Relative reaction norms for the evolution of productivity (F1.1, Δ [aCO2 × WW × aT ] vs [eCO2 × WD ×HW ] (PRT), Eq 1 ) and water-related traits (F1.2, Δ [aCO2 × WW × aT ] vs [eCO2 × WD ×HW ] (WRT), Eq 1 ) for eCO 2 , water deficit and heatwaves. Productivity-related traits include photosynthesis, biomass and yield variables, water-related traits only include stomatal conductance variables. Results are presented for chamber facilities. Point sizes represent different heatwave temperatures, line types represent the onset of stress and colors represent different water deficit intensities (ratio of water inputs between treatments, in %). With this approach we tackle the question of the compensation between eCO2 and climatic stress on productivity and water-related traits with focus F1 (brown arrows in Figure 2 ). We also tackle the question of interaction between eCO 2 and stress on productivity-related traits by comparing eCO 2 effect in stressed versus non-stressed conditions (purple arrows in Figure 2 ). In the rest of the review, the relative changes in plasticity indices are represented as relative reaction norms ( Guntrip and Sibly, 1998 ) for the extracted observations, i.e. comparing the relative impact of a treatment (in %) with the control. No statistical analysis was performed on the plasticity indices due to the small number of observations and the heterogeneity of the data collected for crop productivity and water-related traits (e.g. studies performed at different scales from organ-to crop-level and from seconds to the whole crop cycle). 2. Combined effects of CO 2 and water deficit Water deficit and eCO 2 both decrease stomatal conductance and transpiration ( Figure 1 ), leading to improved water-use efficiency. However, they also have opposite effects on photosynthesis, which is decreased under water deficit but increased with eCO 2 ( Figure 1 ). Hence, plants display opposing plastic responses on photosynthesis under eCO 2 and water deficit so plant biomass may increase or decrease depending on the characteristics of the water deficit and the level of CO 2 increase. Zahra et al. (2023) concluded that eCO 2 often compensates for the adverse effects of water deficit on grain development but the effects on grain quality are often detrimental with decreased grain size, protein content and grain protein yield. On another hand, both environmental factors trigger a plastic decrease in stomatal conductance, which is expected to decrease under combined eCO 2 and water deficit, and this decrease might even be enhanced by their interactions. Such interactions can be studied for different concentrations of ambient and elevated CO 2 as well as different intensities of soil water deficit estimated here as the percentage of water not applied in the water deficit treatment relative to the well-watered control (WI WW vs WD ): where WI is the water input (i.e. rainfall, irrigation, soil available water) under well-watered conditions (WW) or water deficit (WD) expressed as a percentage. Note that this water intensity index does not consider many characteristics that would influence stress intensity such as soil properties, soil available water at sowing, the level of evaporative demand, or the status of the plant when water stopped being applied to plants (as plants with greater leaf area typically deplete soil water faster than smaller plants). 2.1. Meta-information of the experimental studies We identified 26 studies investigating the effect of interactions between eCO 2 and soil water deficit on wheat (detailed in Table S1 ). The characteristics of these experiments are summarized in Table 1 for the studied ranges of CO 2 concentrations, water deficit intensity, timing of stress, type of observations and number of cultivars. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 1 Characteristics of the 26 experiments analyzed that studied elevated CO 2 x soil water deficit interactions in growth chambers, open-top chambers (OTC) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE), with the studied range of CO 2 concentrations water deficit intensity (based on relative water input), the distribution of observations according to water deficit timing (i.e. entire growth cycle (continuous), pre-flowering (from 1 st leaf to flowering) or around flowering), and the distribution of observations for productivity and water-related traits. Productivity-related traits (PRTs) include yield components (grain yield, ear weight, ear dry matter or grain test weight per m 2 , per plant, pot or shoot and either at harvest or at the end of grain filling) or biomass/plant weight variables (total dry weight, shoot dry weight per plant). Water-related traits (WRTs) include stomatal conductance (at flowering or at day 226), transpiration (cumulative transpiration, water use) and WUE (for shoots or the whole canopy, i.e. both shoots and roots). 2.2. Compensation between ambient and future-like climatic conditions combining eCO2 and water deficit (F1) 2.2.1. Compensation for productivity-related traits (F1.1) For the studied data, the difference in productivity-related traits (PRTs) between non-stressed conditions under aCO 2 and stressful conditions under ‘future-like’ eCO 2 (F1.1, Δ [aCO2×WW] vs [eCO2×WD] (PRT), Eq 1 ) is negative in 70% (i.e. 55/79) of the considered observations. Reaction norms are displayed on Figure 3 (F1.1) gathering different types of traits (yield and plant biomass) and the detail per trait is available in Figure S1A . The relative difference has an average of −9% and a large variability (SD 33%; Figure 3 F1.1). There are more cases of short and/or severe water deficits ( Figure 3 , red-dashed lines) in chamber studies than in OTC or FACE studies and they tend to result in more negative impacts on productivity. For water deficit applied during part of the plant cycle only, stress onset was mostly applied before flowering, hence with longer exposure than for the few observations with an onset at flowering (3 green diamonds on Figure 3 F1.2). These three observations ( Asif et al., 2017 ; Erice et al., 2014 ) corresponded to limited yield response (0 to −9%) for moderate stress intensities of 45-50%. In chambers, productivity response is more negative for punctual water deficits than continuous ones; this is likely due to higher water deficit intensities for these punctual deficits (80-100% versus 20-60% for continuous ones) and the fact that the duration of these punctual deficits is still quite long (start pre-flowering until end of growth). The existence of some positive reaction norms for low intensity water deficits shows that in such conditions eCO 2 can compensate for water deficit and result in a positive productivity response. These positive responses are not systematically related to genetic characteristics: it is the case in some experiments using drought-tolerant cultivars as Mv15 in Harnos et al. (2002) , Ganmai in Wu et al. (2004) , Gladius in Cao et al. (2022) . Some other genotypes also show positive productivity response as Yongling in Kang et al. (2002) , Cham 1 in Kaddour and Fuller (2004) , Soissons in Acker et al. (2024) , Regallo in Medina et al. (2016) or Kolompos in Farkas et al. (2021) ; these cultivars are not described as drought-tolerant or exhibiting other traits that may suggest a tolerant behavior, they are often the most widely used in the regions where the experiments take place. Overall, the impact of soil water deficit highly depends on the stress onset timing, duration and intensity, as well as other factors related to the soil and crop ( Chenu, 2015 ), both under aCO 2 ( Tardieu et al., 2018 ) and eCO 2 ( Figure 3 ). Understanding the quantitative interactions between CO 2 levels and water deficit is needed (F2) to model crop responses in projected future climate scenarios. In the studied experiments, eCO 2 does not compensate for the effect of water deficit on crop productivity, but the large variability of the observations highlights the fact that this impact depends on stress onset timing, duration and intensity. 2.2.2. Compensation for water-related traits (F1.2) Reaction norms for water-related traits (WRTs) between ‘current’ non-stressed and ‘future-like’ stressed conditions (F1.2, Δ [aCO2 × WW] vs [eCO2 × WD] (WRT), Eq 1 ) are displayed on Figure 3 (F1.2) gathering different types of traits (stomatal conductance, transpiration and WUE) and the detail per trait is available in Figure S1B . The trend is negative with 43/49 negative relative reaction norms for stomatal conductance and transpiration with an average of −27% (SD 21%), and only positive relative reaction norms for WUE with an average of +61% (SD 14%; Figure 3 F1.2, purple diamonds). However, even if the hypothesis of a decrease in water consumption in response to combined eCO 2 and water deficit was mostly confirmed, several exceptions were also reported. Some positive relative reaction norms were surprisingly obtained in the studies by Medina et al. (2016) and Farkas et al. (2021) , due to the increase in conductance in response to eCO 2 exceeding the usual decrease due to water deficit, but these findings were not significant. Overall, the global trend is towards reduced water consumption under combined eCO 2 and water deficit. 2.3. CO2 interaction with water deficit on productivity-related traits (F2) The hypothesis of whether eCO 2 has a stronger effect on productivity-related traits (PRTs) under dry than wet conditions (F2, Δ eCO2, [WW] vs [WD] (PRT), Eq 2 ) has been tested by several studies with contrasted results. Reaction norms are displayed on Figure 3 (F2) gathering different types of traits (yield and plant biomass) and the detail per trait is available in Figure S1C . In the studied dataset, 54% (i.e. 43/79) of the relative reaction norms were positive, indicating a stronger effect of eCO 2 under dry conditions in more than half of the studied combinations of water deficit and eCO 2 ( Figure 3 F2). However, the mean difference in this relative effect of eCO 2 between well-watered and dry conditions is close to zero (1.83%) with a large variability indicated by a standard deviation of 44%. In other words, no clear trend could be observed due to this high standard deviation relative to the mean difference. Thus, the hypothesis that the positive effects of eCO 2 are stronger under dry than under wet conditions was far from systematically confirmed for wheat. 3. Interactive effects between eCO 2 and warming Increased temperature decreases the specificity of Rubisco for CO 2 , favoring photorespiration with oxygenation rather than photosynthesis with carboxylation. Hence, the benefit of eCO 2 is expected to be even greater under high temperatures due to heat inhibition of photosynthesis ( Long, 1991 ; Scafaro et al., 2023 ). Photosynthesis models predict that for C3 plants, response to eCO 2 might raise the optimum temperature of CO 2 assimilation by +5°C, resulting in a positive interaction between these two variables ( Alonso et al., 2009 ; Drake et al., 1997 ; Long, 1991 ) but this theory was not verified by all investigators ( Qaderi and Reid, 2009 ). Nevertheless, when temperatures exceed the optimum, notably during heatwaves, photosynthetic activity decreases, counteracting the positive effect of high CO 2 levels ( Abdelhakim et al., 2022 ). Increases in CO 2 and mean temperature also have opposite effects on transpiration, which decreases with eCO 2 but increases with warming, to cool the leaves ( Rivero et al., 2022 ). The contrasting responses to eCO 2 and warming observed for photosynthesis and stomatal conductance are making it difficult to predict the net result of these effects. Kadam et al. (2014) found that reproductive physiology was driven mainly by temperature, with only an indirect impact of eCO 2 , leading to reduced grain set and yield. In addition, eCO 2 may result in a slightly smaller increase in grain protein levels in heat-treated plants. Overall grain quality seems to decrease with increasing CO 2 levels and warming, mainly due to changes in storage proteins under both these sets of conditions, decreasing dough and baking quality ( Farooq et al., 2011 ). However, Zahra et al. (2023) concluded that eCO2 combined with warming would increase grain size as well as globulin and albumin content, resulting in increased grain protein content despite a decrease in gliadin and glutenin. 3.1. Meta-information of the experimental studies We identified 32 studies focusing on interactions between eCO 2 and warming, 23 of them studying warming through high temperatures (detailed in Table S2 ) and 9 studying warming through heatwaves (detailed in Table S3 ). The characteristics of these experiments are summarized in Table 2 for the studied ranges of CO 2 concentrations, temperature increment or stress temperature, timing and duration of stress, type of observations and number of cultivars. View this table: View inline View popup Table 2 Characteristics of 32 experiments analyzed that studied elevated CO 2 with warming through high temperatures or heatwaves (HW), reported by types of experiments, i.e. growth chambers, open-top chambers (OTC) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE), with the studied range of CO 2 concentrations and the constant temperature increase throughout the growth cycle or throughout the grain-filling period (2 observations) for HT, or the heatwave mean temperature and stress duration, the onset of heatwave before flowering (from tillering to heading), during or after (from 10 days after flowering to late grain filling), and the distribution of observations for productivity- and water-related traits. Productivity-related traits include variables for yield (grain yield per m 2 , per ear, per plant or per plot for high temperatures and grain yield per plant, per plot or for 10 spikes for heatwaves), plant above-ground biomass (dry biomass at week 5 for high temperatures), and photosynthesis (photosynthesis at flowering for heatwaves). Water-related traits include stomatal conductance (stomatal conductance, stomatal conductance at flowering, stomatal conductance during grain filling for high temperatures and stomatal conductance for heatwaves) and transpiration (evapotranspiration for high temperatures). 3.2. Compensation between ambient and future-like climatic conditions with eCO2 and warming (F1) 3.2.1. Compensation for productivity-related traits (F1.1) Reaction norms studying productivity-related traits (PRTs) between non-stressed conditions under ambient CO 2 and stressed conditions under ‘future-like’ eCO 2 when considering high temperatures (F1.1, Δ [aCO2×aT] vs [eCO2×HT] (PRT), Eq 1 ) are displayed on Figure 4 gathering different types of traits (yield and plant biomass) and the detail per trait is available in Figure S2A . The trend is nearly null (+0.03%) and variable (SD 14%), with about as many positive (25/49) as negative (24/49) relative reaction norms ( Figure 4 ). In chambers, productivity responses are the most variable, depending on the degree of temperature increment. Responses are negative for high increases of 4-6°C ( Hansen et al., 2019 ; McKee and Woodward, 1994 ; Mitchell et al., 1995 , 1993 ), indicating that eCO 2 cannot compensate for the negative effect of temperature increase. However, there are also some negative response for medium temperature increments of +3°C ( Asif et al., 2019 ; Hakala, 1998 ), even though mean high temperatures should not be stressful (18-20°C) but the results were contrasted over different years for cultivar Polkka in Hakala (1998) . Among the tested cultivars, none was characterized for heat tolerance, leading to a part of variability in plant response. In OTCs and TGTs results were also variable but to a lesser extent due to the more limited range of temperature increase. Some cultivars were selected for their heat-tolerance and showed positive productivity response such as DBW14, HD2967 ( Prakash et al., 2017 ) and Zhongmai 9 ( Wang et al., 2018 ) but negative for Halna ( Dwivedi et al., 2017 ). Some other genotypes showed clear negative responses (Minaret, Tanmai, Yangmai) or positive (Timai) but they were not characterized for heat-tolerance, and other cultivars showed variable responses depending on the year. Finally, for FACE studies, productivity responses are mostly positive due to low temperature increments, especially in Braunschweig, Germany ( Krause et al., 2023 ; Manderscheid et al., 2020 ) and Walpeup, Australia ( Fernando et al., 2012 ; Fitzgerald et al., 2016 ). However, the study conducted in Kangbo, China ( Cai et al., 2016 ) for cv Yangmai resulted in negative productivity responses over two years, which could be explained by the heat-sensitivity of this cultivar. When considering heatwaves (F1.1, Δ [aCO2×aT] vs [eCO2×HW] (PRT), Eq 1 ), reaction norms are displayed on Figure 5 (F1.1) gathering different types of traits (yield and photosynthesis) and the detail per trait is available in Figure S2B . The relative difference between ambient and future-like conditions was more negative on average (−8.5%), but with about half of negative responses (21/40) and an important variability (SD 41%, Figure 5 F1.1). So, in the studied experiments combining eCO2 and heatwaves there were as many positive as negative combined effects. The FACE study of Macabuhay et al. (2018) reported consistent positive responses, for a short heatwave duration (3 days) with high temperatures (38°C) applied before or after flowering. Productivity was particularly enhanced in the second year by combined eCO2 and heat for low-yielding conditions (high temperatures, low water availability) for cv Yitpi; this cultivar showed positive responses in terms of productivity despite not being heat tolerant in Chavan et al. (2022) . The temperatures studied in chambers were higher than those studied in FACE studies, and tended to generate more negative productivity trends. For experiments in chambers under eCO 2 and heatwaves, heat stress before flowering (solid lines in Figure 5 ) led to more yield loss, even with short duration and under lower temperature (35°C) than some experiments with higher temperature but later stress onset (red relative reaction norms at 40°C). Hence in the studied experiments combining eCO 2 and heatwaves, productivity tends to decrease, with a greater impact for heatwaves before flowering. Indeed, pre-flowering heatwaves can severely impact biomass production with reduced photosynthesis, even though the earlier the stress, the more likely compensations could occur later on. However early heat stress could be more harmful as younger plants might have lower defense. This confirms the findings of Ullah et al. (2024) that also concluded in stronger yield reduction under pre-flowering than post-flowering heatwaves, mostly due to the reduction in grain number. Nevertheless the effect of timing is likely interacting with genetic effects; for example the 3 days heatwave at 35°C at meiosis experimented in Bokshi et al. (2021) issued a more negative response than the 3 days heatwave at 40°C at flowering experimented in Ulfat et al. (2021) , which could be explained by the difference in timing but also by the genotypes selected for the experiments as there are many heat-sensitive cultivars (PBIC, Vixen, Devil, CMSA, Cobra, Dart, Suntop, Scout, E Rock) in Bokshi et al. (2021) compared to Ulfat et al. (2021) with mostly tolerant cultivars (Chakwal-50, Shahkar, Pakistan-13, FSD-08). However, some positive response can be observed for sensitive cultivars and inversely. 3.2.2. Compensation for water-related traits (F1.2) For the studied data, the difference in water-related traits (WRTs) between non-stressed conditions under aCO 2 and stressed conditions under ‘future-like’ eCO 2 when considering high temperatures (F1.2, Δ [aCO2×aT] vs [eCO2×HT] (WRT), Eq 1 ) exhibits considerable variability (SD 83%) due to the low number of observations (only six from one study including five observations on stomatal conductance and one on transpiration; Figure S3 ). Although the trend is slightly positive (+3%), it should be noted that out of these six observations, four were negative, one at 0% and one at 150% under combined eCO 2 and high temperatures ( Yang et al., 2023 ). In this study, plant water status was studied by measuring stomatal conductance at leaf scale, which tended to decrease in response to high temperatures in 2018 and 2019, with a large additional decrease in response to eCO 2 . However, in 2020, stomatal conductance increased considerably in response to eCO 2 (+79% under ambient temperature and +32% under high temperature) but this surprising response was no adressed in the study. When considering heatwaves, (F1.2, Δ [aCO2×aT] vs [eCO2×HW] (WRT), Eq 2 ), reaction norms are displayed on Figure 5 (F1.2) for stomatal conductance. The difference in water-related traits between ambient and future-like conditions displayed a mean change of −10% (SD 56%), and most (20/31) relative reaction norms were negative ( Figure 5 F1.2). There were four null relative reaction norms and seven positive ones, including four observations for which the positive relative reaction norms were explained an increase in stomatal conductance with heatwaves that exceeded its decrease caused by eCO 2 . The positive responses for the other three observations of conductance was due to an increase in response to both eCO 2 and heatwaves. Two of the 13 observations reported by Bokshi et al. (2021) involved large changes of +85 and +230% due to major increases in stomatal conductance in response to eCO 2 not highlighted in their study. These positive reactive norms do not necessarily reflect an effect of scale (leaf vs plant) as responses in absolute values were minor with low values for the control treatment (ambient CO 2 and temperature). Stomatal conductance in expected to increase under high temperatures ( Poudyal et al., 2019 ) as a mechanism to cool leaf temperature, opposing the effect of eCO 2 that decreases conductance; the reviewed studies show an overall downward trend in stomatal conductance, irrespective of the timing and duration of heatwaves. However, the response of stomatal conductance to heat is highly variable, notably depending on the timing of the measure (during or after stress). As expected, some studies found that conductance increases under heat ( Bokshi et al., 2021 ; Shanmugam et al., 2013 ) but others concluded in a decrease ( Shokat et al., 2021 ; Zhang et al., 2018 ) while the others concluded in non-significant effects of heat ( Chavan et al., 2022 , 2019 ; Macabuhay et al., 2018 ). 3.3. CO 2 interaction with warming on productivity-related traits (F2) We also studied if the fertilizing effect of CO 2 is stronger under warming (through high temperatures or heatwaves) than at ambient temperature (aT; F2; Figure S4 ). For high temperatures, Δ eCO2 , [aT] vs [HT] (PRT) displayed a mean value of 5.8% and was highly variable (SD 28%), with 69% (24/35) positive relative reaction norms corresponding to a stronger effect of eCO 2 under high temperatures ( Figure S4A ). For heatwaves, Δ eCO2, [aT] vs [HW] (PRT) displayed a mean value of 30% with considerable variability (SD 97%) with 55% positive relative reaction norms (22/40), corresponding to a stronger eCO 2 effect under heatwaves ( Figure S4B ). These positive means and higher proportion of positive relative reaction norms are relevant with the hypothesis of greater eCO 2 effect under high temperature ( Long, 1991 ; Qaderi and Reid, 2009 ) but it is not systematically verified and given the high degree of variability of the relative reaction norms, no firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the effect of interactions between eCO 2 and warming on plant productivity. 4. Interactive effects of CO 2 , warming and water deficit (three-way interaction) The combined effects of warming (through high temperature or heatwaves) with water deficit appear to aggravate yield reductions compared to single-stress effects ( Kadam et al., 2014 ). However, the combination of warming and drought stress with eCO 2 has been rarely studied. In a general review of the effects of this combination, Abdelhakim et al. (2022) highlighted opposite impacts of each single factor on photosynthesis and transpiration ( Figure 1 ). As mentioned above, photosynthetic activity is increased by eCO 2 and can be increased under combined eCO 2 and high temperatures over an optimal temperature range, but it is reduced by heat and drought stress. Stomatal conductance (and hence relative transpiration) decreases under eCO 2 and water deficit, thus allowing water saving, but increases under heat stress to allow leaf cooling. These individual effects have been well studied ( Figure 1 ) but competing responses to eCO 2 , water deficit and high temperatures observed for photosynthesis and stomatal conductance lead to a difficult prediction of these responses when these stresses are combined. Overall, more needs to be done to understand properly the interacting effects in response to eCO 2 , water deficit and high temperatures interactions with dedicated experiments and meta-analyses based on historical data. Helman and Bonfil (2022) found that the alleviation effect of eCO 2 of the last six decades has been insufficient to compensate for the global negative effects of heat and drought stress on yield. However, with the rate of climate change, such studies cannot be used to predict the future and studies based on simulation outputs provide contradicting predictions ( Hochman et al., 2017 ; Makowski et al., 2020 ). 4.1. Meta-information of experimental studies We identified 5 studies focusing on interactions between eCO 2 , warming and water deficit; 2 of them studying warming through high temperatures (detailed in Table S4 ) and 3 studying warming through heatwaves (detailed in Table S5 ). The characteristics of these experiments are summarized in Table 3 for the studied ranges of CO 2 concentrations, temperature increment or stress temperature, timing and duration of stress, type of observations, intensity and timing of water deficit and number of cultivars. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 3 Characteristics of 31 experiments analyzed that studied elevated CO 2 with warming through high temperatures or heatwaves (HW), reported by types of experiments, i.e. growth chambers, open-top chambers (OTC) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE), with the studied range of CO 2 concentrations and the constant temperature increase throughout the growth cycle or throughout the grain-filling period (2 observations) for HT, or the heatwave mean temperature and stress duration, the onset of heatwave before flowering (from tillering to heading), during or after (from 10 days after flowering to late grain filling), and the distribution of observations for productivity- and water-related traits. Productivity-related traits include variables for yield (grain yield per m 2 , per ear, per plant or per plot for high temperatures and grain yield per plant, per plot or for 10 spikes for heatwaves), plant above-ground biomass (dry biomass at week 5 for high temperatures), and photosynthesis (photosynthesis at flowering for heatwaves). Water-related traits include stomatal conductance (stomatal conductance, stomatal conductance at flowering, stomatal conductance during grain filling for high temperatures and stomatal conductance for heatwaves) and transpiration (evapotranspiration for high temperatures). 4.2. Compensation for productivity-related traits between ambient and future-like climatic conditions with combined eCO2, water deficit and warming (F1.1) For the studied data, the difference in productivity-related traits between non-stressed condition under aCO 2 and stressed conditions under ‘future-like’ eCO 2 when considering water deficit and high temperatures (F1.1, Δ [aCO2×WW×aT] vs [eCO2×WD×HT] (PRT), Eq 1 ) or heatwaves (Δ [aCO2×WW×aT] vs [eCO2×WD×HW] (PRT)) is negative with mean values of −25% (SD 20%) for interactions with high temperatures ( Figure 6 F1.1 for yield) and −14% (SD 43%) for interactions with heatwaves ( Figure 7 F1.1 gathering yield and photosynthesis, details per trait in Figure S5 ). For interactions with high temperatures, most relative reaction norms were negative (18/21), likely due to the high intensity of water deficit with no irrigation and high temperature increments above +2°C in most studies. In FACE studies, results were less negative for the observations made in China ( Guoju et al., 2005 ) than for the ones made in Australia ( Fitzgerald et al., 2016 ; O’Leary et al., 2015 ) but temperature increments and water deficit intensity were also lower in China. Some studies investigated different temperature increments and found that the higher the increase in temperature, the lower productivity under combined eCO 2 , water deficit and high temperatures ( Dias De Oliveira et al., 2013 ; Guoju et al., 2005 ). Dias De Oliveira et al. (2013) found that two cultivars with different vigor had similar productivity responses because cv Janz could compensate its lack of vigor by increased tillering capacity. Hence, Dias De Oliveira et al. (2015) investigated the role of tillering capacity and they found that high tillering capacity enabled enhanced productivity under combined eCO 2 with water deficit and high temperatures, concluding that tillering is a promising target for breeding under adverse climatic conditions. For heatwaves, 5/8 reactions norms were negative but some productivity responses were positive, showing an increase up to 50% for photosynthesis ( Figure S5 ), for which the direct effect of eCO 2 resulted in a stronger alleviating effect. This could result from both the lower temperature intensity and duration of the heatwave and the later occurrence of water deficit at flowering in Abdelhakim et al. (2021) . Besides, eCO 2 more directly compensates photosynthesis than biomass and yield for which it is only indirect, so eCO 2 alleviation could be more important for photosynthesis. Under combined eCO 2 , warming and water deficit, productivity tends to decrease due to an insufficient alleviation effect of eCO2. For these studies, drought-tolerance enabled less negative responses for cv Gladius compared to Paragon in Li et al. (2019) . On the contrary heat-tolerant cultivars GN5 in Abdelhakim et al. (2021) and LM20 in Abdelhakim et al. (2022) displayed negative responses whereas heat-sensitive LM19, KU10 and SF29 displayed positive responses. This entails that heat-tolerance might not be an interesting feature under combined eCO 2 and stress, unlike drought-tolerance; this could be explained by the stronger effect of drought than heat stress on plants ( Zandalinas et al., 2021 ). 4.3. Compensation for water-related traits between ambient and future-like climatic conditions with combined eCO2, water deficit and warming (F1.2) The difference in stomatal conductance (the only WRTs studied) between non-stressed conditions under aCO 2 and stressed conditions under ‘future-like’ eCO 2 when considering water deficit with either high temperatures (F1.2, Δ [aCO2×WW×aT] vs [eCO2×WD×HT] (WRT), Eq 1 ) or heatwaves (Δ [aCO2×WW×aT] vs [eCO2×WD×HW] (WRT)) was negative, with mean values of −23% (SD 9%) for combined eCO 2 , water deficit and high temperatures ( Figure 6 F1.2) and −69% (SD 23%) for combined eCO 2 , water deficit and heatwaves ( Figure 7 F1.2). This indicates that the conductance-lowering effects of eCO 2 and drought were stronger than the increasing effect of warming. However, these conclusions are drawn from a very limited number of relative reaction norms. 5. Limitations and opportunities to study the effects of climate change in wheat crops 5.1. Contributions of experiments with interacting environmental factors In this review, we used relative reaction norms to assess the plasticity of productivity- and water-related traits involved in the response to eCO 2 combined with warming and/or water deficit. By evaluating experimental studies, we were able to outline major trends and identify knowledge gaps. The key findings of this review are summarized in Figure 8 . The relative reaction norms for productivity- and water-related traits extracted from experimental studies revealed variable responses to eCO 2 , warming and water deficit, but several trends nevertheless emerged. We found that future-like conditions tested in experiments are expected to decrease productivity, with this decrease accentuated by greater water deficit intensity, temperature increase or duration of heatwave events. For the studied conditions, there is a strong overall synergistic negative effect of combined heat and water deficit on plant performance, which cannot be compensated by eCO 2 ( Figure 8A ). These findings are in accordance with the conclusion of the meta-regression of Helman and Bonfil (2022) on historical data and with the meta-analysis conducted by Zhu et al. (2023) . More specifically, from inferring eCO 2 and high temperature response in OTC experiments, Zhu et al. (2023) found that eCO 2 and high temperature projected in the future would result in global yield gain under a moderate emission scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway RCP 4.5) but in a global yield loss under a high emission scenario (RCP 8.5); by contrast, when inferring results from FACE data, eCO 2 and high temperature projected by both RCP scenarios would always result in yield loss. We also found that heatwaves, despite their large diversity, had greater effects on productivity- and water-related traits than high temperatures when combined with eCO 2 . They should therefore be characterized with greater care in terms of intensity, timing and duration. In the considered studies, heat stress occurring before flowering seemed to be more harmful than for those applied later on but only in chambers for a temperature of 35°C, as there was not enough data in FACE to confirm this observation. However, such high temperatures rarely occur in wheat production environments (e.g. Ababaei and Chenu, 2020 ). Download figure Open in new tab Download figure Open in new tab Figure 8 Summary diagram of plant plasticity for A) productivity-related traits (PRT, i.e. yield, plant biomass and photosynthesis in pink) and B) water-related traits (WRT, i.e. stomatal conductance and transpiration in blue) in response to elevated CO 2 (eCO 2 ), warming though high temperature (HT) or heatwave (HW), and water deficit (WD) for published experimental data (i.e. mix of stress with a wide range of intensity, timing and duration). Violin and box plots represent the distribution of the plasticity indices PI [aCO2 x nS] vs [eCO2 x S] , i.e. the relative variation in studied traits between non-stressed conditions under ambient CO 2 (aCO 2 x nS) and stressed conditions under ‘future-like’ eCO 2 (eCO 2 x S). The mean value, the standard deviation and the number of observations (N) are displayed below each graph. It is often hypothesized that eCO 2 has a greater effect in dry than in wet conditions ( Wang et al., 2022 ), but only 54% of the 79 relative reaction norms calculated here for experiments focusing on both eCO 2 and water deficit confirmed this hypothesis ( Figure 3 F2), which is far from being systematically verified. The contrasting conclusions of these studies highlight the challenge to study quantitative response to combined stress in conditions that vary for those stresses (timing, intensity, duration of the stresses) and other factors (e.g. radiation, temperature, fertilization, genotypes). Stressful conditions under eCO 2 could be expected to result in a global decrease in water consumption (e.g. Figures 3 F1.2, 5 F1.2, 6 F1.2 and 7 F1.2), even with the antagonistic effects of higher temperatures. This implies that the plastic increase in water consumption in response to warming is largely surpassed by the plastic decrease in response to eCO 2 and water deficit. This finding is consistent with that of Zandalinas et al. (2021) concerning the stronger effect of drought than of heat stress on stomatal conductance responses. However, there were several surprising observations of increases in stomatal conductance in response to eCO 2 . Most of them were not significant but questioned a potential scale effect. Indeed, a scale effect (organ vs plant level) on the impact of eCO 2 on stomatal conductance/transpiration has already been reported, with stomatal conductance decreasing in leaf tissues while transpiration of the whole plant increased due to the fertilization effect of eCO 2 on biomass allowing plants to produce more leaf area. For instance in ryegrass, Acker et al. (2023) reported a decrease in stomatal conductance in leaf tissues in response to eCO 2 but an increase in transpiration at plant scale. The studies reviewed here included observations at organ and plant scales, with a decrease in stomatal conductance/transpiration in response to eCO 2 observed at both scales. For a same combination of stress factors, relative reaction norms were found positive or negative depending on the intensity/timing/duration of the stress, highlighting the complexity of the interactions involved, and the fact that the combined effects of environmental variables may not be linear. More complex relative reaction norms can be drawn for studies considering more levels and modalities of environmental factors. For instance, two studies ( Farkas et al., 2021 ; Varga et al., 2017 ) considered different levels of CO 2 concentrations (400, 700 and 1000 ppm), water deficit (water input reduced by 100 and 82%, respectively) and stress onsets for five cultivars presented in Figure S6 . These studies clearly highlight that yield and transpiration response to combined eCO 2 and water deficit is not linear. This non-linearity notably questions the use of linear relative reaction norms to represent the effects of such stress. It suggests more complex frameworks should be developed, such as random regression mixed models enabling to analyze non-linear response ( Arnold et al., 2019 ) or eco-physiological response curves of key traits derived from appropriate levels of stress, which can be integrated to crop models in order to account for interactions within the crop and with other environmental variables ( Chenu et al., 2017 ; Collins et al., 2021 ; Hammer et al., 2010 ). 5.2. Limitations concerning the studied experimental set-ups The experimental set-ups used were subject to limitations even for studies of the effects of eCO 2 , warming or water deficit separately. Enclosure studies tend to overestimate the effects of eCO 2 due to their small scale and warmer temperatures ( Long et al., 2004 ), whereas FACE studies, which assess eCO 2 effects in the field, suggest a smaller effect of eCO 2 on yield ( Van Der Kooi et al., 2016 ). However, the large fluctuations of CO 2 occurring within the day in FACE studies (due to intermittent CO 2 emission and wind) may lead to an underestimation of the effects of eCO 2 ( Allen et al., 2020 ). Another downside of FACE studies is their cost. There is, therefore, currently no perfect experimental set-up for such studies. As a result, the CO 2 concentrations tested rarely exceed 700 ppm, whereas projected CO 2 concentrations range from 540 to 1300 ppm ( Calvin et al., 2023 ). Some environmental stresses are associated as they often occur together (e.g. heatwaves typically happen during drought periods) and have intertwined effects. For instance, the decrease in transpiration in response to a warming treatment can be due to the increase in atmospheric water deficit triggered by higher temperatures ( Lobell et al., 2013 ; Sadok et al., 2021 ). Atmospheric drying should receive more attention in studies of water deficit ( Wright and Collins, 2024 ) and warming. We identified several limitations of the studied experiments combining eCO 2 , water deficit, and warming (through high temperatures or heatwaves) in this review. Firstly, water deficit was mostly studied over long periods, whether continuously from sowing to harvest or from sowing to flowering, the only exception being a four-day water deficit after flowering in one study ( Li et al., 2019 ). These long water deficits include drought stress after flowering but are not representative of short occasional drought stresses that are frequent in production environments, particularly after flowering (Chenu et al., 2013). There is a gap in our knowledge concerning terminal drought during grain filling, due to a lack of studies on finite periods of drought stress at different times and for different durations, despite the major threat to crops posed by terminal drought ( Farooq et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, these studies only considered soil water deficit, despite the importance of effects from atmospheric water deficit than often co-occur with soil water deficit and warming. Soil water deficit is also hard to compare between studies, as water deficit does not only depend on water input (as characterized here) but also on soil properties (e.g. soil water content at sowing, capacity of the soil to retain water), evaporative demand (driver of soil water loss) and plant characteristics (e.g. the feedback of plant growth on soil water depletion). For high temperatures and water deficit, we considered the increase in temperature or ratio of water input compared to control experiments, but temperature from the control and soil water availability are also important and were not always provided. A lot of studies were also conducted in relatively small pots, which can constrain root growth and typically have higher soil temperature (especially for warming studies) than in field conditions. Only very few studies consider different levels of stress (five for combined eCO 2 with water deficit, one for eCO 2 with high temperatures, two for eCO 2 with water deficit and high temperatures and one for combined eCO 2 with water deficit and heatwaves), while it is necessary to better understand the non-linearity of plant response to combined environmental factors. The range of CO 2 concentrations studied was wider for studies focusing on water deficit (200-1000 ppm) than for those investigating warming (300-750 ppm), and was narrower in FACE studies, limiting long-term predictions. Nitrogen is an additional key factor that should be considered in the framework of climate change, notably due to the dilution effect of eCO 2 , so modifications in nitrogen fertilization practices in farming might be required. Finally, the focus of this review is on plant plasticity observed in experiments, but the relevance of the climatic perturbations generated in these experiments in regards to foreseeable climatic investigation should be more thoroughly investigated. Zhu et al., (2023) notably highlighted that the CO 2 and mean temperatures ranges under future climatic projections are relevant with experimental variations in OTC facilities under RCP 4.5 but disjointed under RCP 8.5 late century, and more alarmingly the narrower ranges explored by FACE facilities are disjointed from climatic projections under both scenarios mid and late century. Hence experimental knowledge does not cover future possible climatic conditions, especially in FACE. It is hence critical that future experiments tackling combinations of eCO 2 , high temperature and water deficit focus on exploring larger climatic ranges relevant with climatic projections to gain better insight on their effect on wheat performance. Relative reaction norms for productivity- and water-related traits between non-stress conditions with ambient CO 2 and stressed conditions with future eCO 2 levels were highly variable due to considerable data heterogeneity associated with differences in experimental protocols. We tried to take some of this variability into account, for the timing, intensity and duration of the stress and the type of variable considered (yield vs. plant biomass vs. photosynthesis and stomatal conductance vs. transpiration vs. WUE). However, there were very few observations by category, and yet this characterization remains coarse in resolution, only considering broad range of stress intensity/onset/duration within categories. Variability in the results also most likely arise from (i) other climatic factors that were not considered but affect plant growth and development, and from the fact that (ii) all these studies included a large number of genotypes rarely common between studies, some differing for heat or drought tolerance, or in specific traits (e.g. tillering capacity, vigor), with often a preference for local genotypes. Transpiration and/or stomatal conductance should be more systematically measured, and more specific studies of the transpiration response to the combination of stresses under eCO 2 need to be carried out. This will allow a better estimation of changes in canopy energy balance and consequently the increased plant organ temperature compared to air temperature. The more systematic acquisition of additional traits, such as tillering and leaf area, would improve our understanding of the effects of different stress factors. There is currently no consensus for experimentally studying the effects of climate change on crops. Hence, the existing experimental data tackling combinations of eCO 2 , warming and water deficit is quite heterogeneous. This heterogeneity is interesting and informative because it represents to a certain extent a part of an important variability in real-life conditions across the globe. Thorough testing across a wide range of environments could appear as a solution but this heterogeneity will always be difficult to manage, and the number of conditions will never be as comprehensive as to give possible scenarios. We rather recommend considering the following key points by order of importance: - The overall number of experiments combining eCO 2 , warming and water deficit should be increased, even if they remain heterogeneous, and experiments in small pots should be avoided. - The studied ranges of climatic variations should be widened, especially for CO 2 in FACE facilities even though the cost is high. - More generally, experimented climatic variations should be better rooted in future climatic projections to reproduce likely future climatic patterns. Ecoclimatic indicators or stress index computed from crop models to account for interactions between plants and their environments might also allow to better characterize stress occurring in the experiments ( Caubel et al., 2015 ; Chenu, 2015 ; Le Roux et al., 2024 ); they could be calculated for current and projected climate scenarios to design experiments relevant to the target population of environments ( Chenu, 2015 ; Chenu et al., 2013b ). More broadly, the quality of such experimental data could be enhanced by improving the design of the experiments, as recommended by Moshelion et al. (2024) for drought experiments for example. - Even if experimental conditions remain heterogeneous, some common elements could be defined for experimental protocols, notably with more systematic and standardized measurements of traits underlying yield and water consumption. The use of common ecoclimatic indices for stress characterization could also be relevant for the comparison of these heterogeneous experiments. - Another focal point for future studies should be the genetic response of plants to climate change, notably response to environmental factors such as CO 2 . Cultivars used in the experiments considered in this review were very diverse, some selected for their tolerance or sensitivity to heat and/or drought so they may differ in their plasticity to environmental variation, introducing more noise in the comparison of their relative reaction norms. This will help in better understanding the possible compensations between CO 2 and climatic stress, and the way they interact with each other. Improving the quality of this experimental data is also of major interest for crop modeling. 5.3. Perspectives for crop modeling Crop models are efficient tools for overcoming the lack of data from studies of climate fluctuations and exploring the effects of these fluctuations on different processes. They are widely used for predictions under future climate scenarios ( Chenu et al., 2017 ; Morel et al., 2021 ; Wang et al., 2023 , 2017 ; Watson et al., 2017 ), their conclusions varying with the local context. Crop models are also useful for testing adaptation strategies, mainly based on the modulation of sowing date and genotype selection ( Zheng et al., 2018 ; ( Collins and Chenu, 2021 ; Zheng et al., 2018 ). One key issue in the use of crop models to study climate change is their lack of validation with experimental data under combined fluctuations of CO 2 , temperature and water availability. Indeed, few validations have been reported to date. Ewert et al. (2002) compared crop simulations with FACE data obtained under combined eCO 2 and water deficit conditions by Kimball et al. (1995) , which gave realistic results. Asseng et al. (2019) studied an ensemble combining 32 wheat crop models and found that the model ensemble realistically simulated FACE data under combined eCO 2 , high temperatures and water deficit published in Fitzgerald et al. (2016) , however the validity of individual models was not investigated. Considerable variability between wheat crop models has also been reported ( Ahmed et al., 2019 ). Thus, even if the median of such model ensembles appears to be valid, some models may under- or overestimate key variables. Rezaei et al. (2023) imputed this uncertainty in model projections to differences in (i) model structure, (ii) the consideration of eCO 2 effects, (iii) genotypic differences and (iv) methodologies for developing modeling routines to study climate change impact on crops. Crop models are rarely subjected to a quantitative validation against experimental data combining fluctuations of CO 2 , temperature and water availability, but empirical qualitative validation is more common. Better validations of crop models with field-based experimental data under climatic fluctuations are required. The lack of validation of crop models under such climatic conditions on existing data, is due partly to (i) limited availability of quality field data combining eCO 2 , water deficit and/or warming, as highlighted in this review, and (ii) the fact that FACE data explores a very limited range of climatic variations. Additional experimental data exploring wider climatic ranges is required for the use of crop models in future climatic projections. To do so, relevant dedicated methods should be considered. Some studies have concluded that model predictions are consistent up to CO 2 concentrations of 500-700 ppm ( Chenu et al., 2017 ; Toreti et al., 2020 ; Vanuytrecht and Thorburn, 2017 ). Other studies concluded that crop models overestimate CO 2 effects ( Addy et al., 2021 ; Ahmed et al., 2019 ), possibly due to model calibration on data from enclosure studies or a lack of consideration of acclimation to eCO 2 in crop models, i.e. the inhibition of processes like photosynthesis under prolonged exposure to eCO 2 but with little systematic evidence under field conditions ( Tausz-Posch et al., 2020 ). Determining the validity of diverse crop models for different plant processes would facilitate the definition of appropriate modeling strategies and widen the range of validity of crop models under climate change. For longer-term predictions, crop models should also be calibrated on experimental data with higher CO 2 concentrations (above 750 ppm), which is lacking for FACE studies (max CO 2 level typically 600-750 ppm). Genetic information related to adaptive traits should also be integrated to the simulated effects of CO 2 , water deficit, warming and other climatic factors in crop models through parametrization. This is an important issue of increasing interest as yield response to multiple stresses is cultivar-specific ( Abdelhakim et al., 2021 ), although experimental data for calibration-validation of models for different genotypes are lacking. In conclusion, better data quality is required for the validation of crop models in conditions combining eCO 2 , warming and water deficit. This will enable to strengthen and widen the range of validity of these models and make more robust predictions. Besides, confronting a model with experimental data is an essential practice that should be continuously performed to challenge the hypotheses implemented in the model, as the point is to learn the ways in which a model is false ( Gelman and Shalizi, 2013 ). Indeed, understanding why a hypothesis implemented in a model is false enables to modify this hypothesis and formulate new ones and improve our general understanding of complex processes. 6. Conclusion To better understand the interaction effects of eCO 2 , high temperatures, heatwaves and water deficit on crop functioning and performance, we reviewed the existing knowledge for these interactions and analyzed experimental data related to crop productivity and water consumption. Relative reaction norms for productivity- and water-related traits were highly variable due to the diversity of experimental protocols. Nevertheless, overall, productivity and water consumption in stressed conditions with elevated CO 2 tended to be lower than in unstressed conditions with current ambient CO 2 . Also, the effect of eCO 2 on productivity was not systematically stronger in drier conditions. Experimental studies on interaction between climatic variables are still lacking. Given the cost of such experiments, there is an urgent need to define common protocol elements to allow improved comparisons and development of meaningful databases, and this review suggests some guidelines to do it. Such experimental results are precious for calibration and validation of crop models, which are widely used to assess and adapt to impacts of future climate despite not having thoroughly tested for such applications. Supplementary Material View this table: View inline View popup Table S1 Characteristics from the studied references that reported results on crop productivity and/or water-related traits under elevated CO 2 (eCO 2 ) and water deficit (WD) conditions. View this table: View inline View popup Table S2 Summary of the extracted experimental studies with available data for crop productivity and water-related traits under eCO 2 and high temperatures. View this table: View inline View popup Table S3 Summary of the extracted experimental studies with available data for crop performance and water-related traits under eCO 2 and heat waves. View this table: View inline View popup Table S4 Summary of the extracted experimental studies with available data for crop productivity and water-related traits under eCO 2 , water deficit and high temperature. View this table: View inline View popup Table S5 Summary of the extracted experimental studies with available data for crop productivity and water-related traits under eCO 2 , water deficit and heat waves. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S1 Relative reaction norms detailed with types of traits of plasticity indices for A) the evolution of production-related traits (PRTs) under future-like eCO2 and water deficit (F1.1, Δ [aCO2 × WW] vs [eCO2 × WD] (PRT), Eq 1 ), B) the evolution of water-related traits (WRTs) under future-like eCO2 and water deficit (F1.2, Δ [aCO2 × WW] vs [eCO2 × WD] (WRT), Eq 1 ) and C) the interaction between eCO2 and water deficit on PRTs (F2, Δ eCO2, [WW] vs [WD] (PRT), Eq 2 ). Colors represent different water-deficit intensities (i.e. ratio of water inputs between treatments, in %) and line types represent different onset timings for soil water deficit. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Relative reaction norms with stress onset at flowering were highlighted by green diamonds for better visibility. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S2 Relative reaction norms for productivity-related traits (PRTs) between non-stressed conditions under ambient CO 2 (control) and treatments with eCO 2 and warming applied as A) high temperatures throughout the growth cycle or the grain filling period with Δ [aCO2 x aT] vs [eCO2 x HT] (PRT) and B) heatwaves with P Δ [aCO2 x aT] vs [eCO2 x HW] (PRT) ( Eq 1 ). Results for yield, above-ground plant biomass and photosynthesis presented for the different types of experiments, i.e. chambers, open-top chambers and temperature-gradient tunnels (OTC/TGT) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE). Colors represent different temperature increments for HT and stress temperature for heatwaves, line types represent different onset timings for heatwaves and point sizes represent the duration of heatwaves. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S3 Relative reaction norms for stomatal conductance as a water-related trait (WRT) between ambient non-limiting conditions (control) and treatments with eCO 2 and warming through high temperatures with Δ [aCO2 x aT] vs [eCO2 x HT] (WRT) ( Eq 1 ). Results presented for the different types of experiments, i.e. chambers and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE). Colors represent stress temperature; line types represent different onset timings for heatwaves and point sizes represent the duration of heatwaves. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S4 Relative reaction norms of plasticity indices for productivity-related traits (PRTs) between ambient non-limiting conditions (control) and treatments with eCO 2 and warming through A) High temperatures with Δ eCO2, [aT] vs [HT] (PRT) and B) Heatwaves with Δ eCO2, [aT] vs [HW] (PRT) as the difference in relative eCO2 effects on PRTs at ambient temperature (aT) vs high temperature (HT) or heatwave (HW) ( Eq 2 ). Results for yield and other variables presented for the different types of experiments, i.e. chambers, open-top chambers and temperature-gradient tunnels (OTC/TGT) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE) studies. Colors represent the temperature increment for HT and heatwave temperature for HW, line types represent different onset timings for heatwave and point size represent heatwave duration. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S5 Relative reaction norms for productivity-related traits (PRTs) between ambient non-limiting conditions (control) and treatments with eCO 2 and heatwaves with Δ [aCO2 x WW x aT] vs [eCO2 x WD x HW] (PRT) (Eq1). Results for yield and other variables presented for open-top chamber/temperature gradient tunnel (OTC/TGT) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE) studies. Colors represent water deficit intensity (% based on water input), line types represent the type of water deficit applied and point sizes represent heatwave temperature and duration. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S6 Relative reaction norms between non-stressed conditions with ambient CO 2 (control) and treatments with different CO 2 concentrations and water deficit for A) yield with Δ [aCO2 x WW] vs [eCO2 x WD] (PRT) and B) Transpiration with Δ [aCO2 x WW] vs [eCO2 x WD] (WRT). Line types represent water deficit intensity (% based on water input), colors represent the type of water deficit applied. The black dashed horizontal lines indicate 0%. Yield response shows a saturating effect between 700 and 1000 ppm in most cases but with some exceptions. For transpiration, relative reactions norms were mostly linear for data from Farkas et al. (2021) but saturating or with lower decrease at 1000 pm in data from Varga et al. (2017) . Acknowledgments We thank R. Barillot, C. Furusho-Percot and D. Cammarano for providing feedback for some of the results obtained in this review, and J. Wolf for providing data. We also thank the FSOV REGARD project for funding this work. References ↵ Ababaei , B. , Chenu , K ., 2020 . Heat shocks increasingly impede grain filling but have little effect on grain setting across the Australian wheatbelt . Agric. For. Meteorol . 284 , 107889 . doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107889 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Abdelhakim , L.O.A. , Palma , C.F.F. , Zhou , R. , Wollenweber , B. , Ottosen , C.-O. , Rosenqvist , E ., 2021 . The effect of individual and combined drought and heat stress under elevated CO2 on physiological responses in spring wheat genotypes . Plant Physiol. Biochem . 162 , 301 – 314 . doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.02.015 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Abdelhakim , L.O.A. , Zhou , R. , Ottosen , C.-O ., 2022 . Physiological Responses of Plants to Combined Drought and Heat under Elevated CO2 . Agronomy 12 , 2526 . doi: 10.3390/agronomy12102526 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Acker , V. , Durand , J.-L. , Perrot , C. , Roy , E. , Frak , E. , Barillot , R ., 2024 . Effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration on transpiration and leaf elongation responses to drought in Triticum aestivum , Lolium perenne and Festuca arundinacea . Ann. Bot. mcae 114 . doi: 10.1093/aob/mcae114 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Acker , V. , Durand , J.-L. , Perrot , C. , Roy , E. , Frak , E. , Barillot , R ., 2023 . Effects of atmospheric CO 2 concentration on transpiration and leaf elongation responses to drought in wheat, perennial ryegrass and tall fescue (preprint) . Plant Biology . doi: 10.1101/2023.12.06.570419 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Addy , J.W.G. , Ellis , R.H. , Macdonald , A.J. , Semenov , M.A. , Mead , A ., 2021 . The impact of weather and increased atmospheric CO 2 from 1892 to 2016 on simulated yields of UK wheat . J. R. Soc. Interface 18 , 20210250 . doi: 10.1098/rsif.2021.0250 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Aguirre , B.A. , Hsieh , B. , Watson , S.J. , Wright , A.J ., 2021 . The experimental manipulation of atmospheric drought: Teasing out the role of microclimate in biodiversity experiments . J. Ecol . 109 , 1986 – 1999 . doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.13595 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Ahmad , Z. , Waraich , E.A. , Akhtar , S. , Anjum , S. , Ahmad , T. , Mahboob , W. , Hafeez , O.B.A. , Tapera , T. , Labuschagne , M. , Rizwan , M ., 2018 . Physiological responses of wheat to drought stress and its mitigation approaches . Acta Physiol. Plant . 40 , 80 . doi: 10.1007/s11738-018-2651-6 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Ahmed , M. , Stöckle , C.O. , Nelson , R. , Higgins , S. , Ahmad , S. , Raza , M.A ., 2019 . Novel multimodel ensemble approach to evaluate the sole effect of elevated CO2 on winter wheat productivity . Sci. Rep . 9 , 7813 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44251-x OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Ainsworth , E.A. , Long , S.P ., 2021 . 30 years of free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE): What have we learned about future crop productivity and its potential for adaptation? Glob. Change Biol . 27 , 27 – 49 . doi: 10.1111/gcb.15375 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Ainsworth , E.A. , Long , S.P ., 2005 . What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO 2 . New Phytol. 165 , 351 – 372 . doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Ainsworth , E.A. , Rogers , A ., 2007 . The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO 2 ]: mechanisms and environmental interactions: Photosynthesis and stomatal conductance responses to rising [CO 2 ] . Plant Cell Environ . 30 , 258 – 270 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01641.x OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Allen , L.H. , Kimball , B.A. , Bunce , J.A. , Yoshimoto , M. , Harazono , Y. , Baker , J.T. , Boote , K.J. , White , J.W ., 2020 . Fluctuations of CO2 in Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) depress plant photosynthesis, growth, and yield . Agric. For. Meteorol . 284 , 107899 . doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.107899 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Alonso , A. , Pérez , P. , Martínez-Carrasco , R ., 2009 . Growth in elevated CO 2 enhances temperature response of photosynthesis in wheat . Physiol. Plant . 135 , 109 – 120 . doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01177.x OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Arnold , P.A. , Kruuk , L.E.B. , Nicotra , A.B ., 2019 . How to analyse plant phenotypic plasticity in response to a changing climate . New Phytol . 222 , 1235 – 1241 . doi: 10.1111/nph.15656 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Asif , M. , Tunc , C.E. , Yazici , M.A. , Tutus , Y. , Rehman , R. , Rehman , A. , Ozturk , L ., 2019 . Effect of predicted climate change on growth and yield performance of wheat under varied nitrogen and zinc supply . Plant Soil 434 , 231 – 244 . doi: 10.1007/s11104-018-3808-1 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Asif , M. , Yilmaz , O. , Ozturk , L ., 2017 . Elevated carbon dioxide ameliorates the effect of Zn deficiency and terminal drought on wheat grain yield but compromises nutritional quality . Plant Soil 411 , 57 – 67 . doi: 10.1007/s11104-016-2996-9 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Asseng , S. , Ewert , F. , Martre , P. , Rötter , R.P. , Lobell , D.B. , Cammarano , D. , Kimball , B.A. , Ottman , M.J. , Wall , G.W. , White , J.W. , Reynolds , M.P. , Alderman , P.D. , Prasad , P.V.V. , Aggarwal , P.K. , Anothai , J. , Basso , B. , Biernath , C. , Challinor , A.J. , De Sanctis , G. , Doltra , J. , Fereres , E. , Garcia-Vila , M. , Gayler , S. , Hoogenboom , G. , Hunt , L.A. , Izaurralde , R.C. , Jabloun , M. , Jones , C.D. , Kersebaum , K.C. , Koehler , A.-K. , Müller , C. , Naresh Kumar , S. , Nendel , C. , O’Leary , G. , Olesen , J.E. , Palosuo , T. , Priesack , E. , Eyshi Rezaei , E. , Ruane , A.C. , Semenov , M.A. , Shcherbak , I. , Stöckle , C. , Stratonovitch , P. , Streck , T. , Supit , I. , Tao , F. , Thorburn , P.J. , Waha , K. , Wang , E. , Wallach , D. , Wolf , J. , Zhao , Z. , Zhu , Y ., 2015 . Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nat . Clim. Change 5 , 143 – 147 . doi: 10.1038/nclimate2470 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Asseng , S. , Foster , I. , Turner , N.C ., 2011 . The impact of temperature variability on wheat yields . Glob. Change Biol . 17 , 997 – 1012 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02262.x OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Asseng , S. , Martre , P. , Maiorano , A. , Rötter , R.P. , O’Leary , G.J. , Fitzgerald , G.J. , Girousse , C. , Motzo , R. , Giunta , F. , Babar , M.A. , Reynolds , M.P. , Kheir , A.M.S. , Thorburn , P.J. , Waha , K. , Ruane , A.C. , Aggarwal , P.K. , Ahmed , M. , Balkovič , J. , Basso , B. , Biernath , C. , Bindi , M. , Cammarano , D. , Challinor , A.J. , De Sanctis , G. , Dumont , B. , Eyshi Rezaei , E. , Fereres , E. , Ferrise , R. , Garcia-Vila , M ., Gayler , S. , Gao , Y. , Horan , H. , Hoogenboom , G. , Izaurralde , R.C. , Jabloun , M. , Jones , C.D. , Kassie , B.T. , Kersebaum , K.-C. , Klein , C. , Koehler , A. , Liu , B. , Minoli , S. , Montesino San Martin , M. , Müller , C. , Naresh Kumar , S. , Nendel , C. , Olesen , J.E. , Palosuo , T. , Porter , J.R. , Priesack , E. , Ripoche , D. , Semenov , M.A. , Stöckle , C. , Stratonovitch , P. , Streck , T. , Supit , I. , Tao , F. , Van der Velde , M. , Wallach , D. , Wang , E. , Webber , H. , Wolf , J. , Xiao , L. , Zhang , Z. , Zhao , Z. , Zhu , Y. , Ewert , F ., 2019 . Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein . Glob. Change Biol . 25 , 155 – 173 . doi: 10.1111/gcb.14481 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Bai , H. , Xiao , D. , Wang , B. , Liu , D.L. , Tang , J ., 2022 . Simulation of Wheat Response to Future Climate Change Based on Coupled Model Inter-Comparison Project Phase 6 Multi-Model Ensemble Projections in the North China Plain . Front. Plant Sci . 13 , 829580 . doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.829580 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Barlow , K.M. , Christy , B.P. , O’Leary , G.J. , Riffkin , P.A. , Nuttall , J.G ., 2015 . Simulating the impact of extreme heat and frost events on wheat crop production: A review . Field Crops Res . 171 , 109 – 119 . doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.11.010 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Bokshi , A.I. , Tan , D.K.Y. , Thistlethwaite , R.J. , Trethowan , R. , Kunz , K ., 2021 . Impact of elevated CO2 and heat stress on wheat pollen viability and grain production . Funct. Plant Biol . 48 , 503 . doi: 10.1071/FP20187 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Cai , C. , Yin , X. , He , S. , Jiang , W. , Si , C. , Struik , P.C. , Luo , W. , Li , G. , Xie , Y. , Xiong , Y. , Pan , G ., 2016 . Responses of wheat and rice to factorial combinations of ambient and elevated CO 2 and temperature in FACE experiments . Glob. Change Biol . 22 , 856 – 874 . doi: 10.1111/gcb.13065 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Core Writing Team , H. Lee and J. Romero Calvin , K. , Dasgupta , D. , Krinner , G. , Mukherji , A. , Thorne , P.W. , Trisos , C. , Romero , J. , Aldunce , P. , Barrett , K. , Blanco , G. , Cheung , W.W.L. , Connors , S. , Denton , F. , Diongue-Niang , A. , Dodman , D. , Garschagen , M. , Geden , O. , Hayward , B. , Jones , C. , Jotzo , F. , Krug , T. , Lasco , R. , Lee , Y.-Y. , Masson-Delmotte , V. , Meinshausen , M. , Mintenbeck , K. , Mokssit , A. , Otto , F.E.L. , Pathak , M. , Pirani , A. , Poloczanska , E. , Pörtner , H.-O. , Revi , A. , Roberts , D.C. , Roy , J. , Ruane , A.C. , Skea , J. , Shukla , P.R. , Slade , R. , Slangen , A. , Sokona , Y. , Sörensson , A.A. , Tignor , M. , Van Vuuren , D. , Wei , Y.-M. , Winkler , H. , Zhai , P. , Zommers , Z. , Hourcade , J.-C. , Johnson , F.X. , Pachauri , S. , Simpson , N.P. , Singh , C. , Thomas , A. , Totin , E. , Arias , P. , Bustamante , M. , Elgizouli , I. , Flato , G. , Howden , M. , Méndez-Vallejo , C. , Pereira , J.J. , Pichs-Madruga , R. , Rose , S.K. , Saheb , Y. , Sánchez Rodríguez , R. , Ürge-Vorsatz , D. , Xiao , C. , Yassaa , N. , Alegría , A. , Armour , K. , Bednar-Friedl , B. , Blok , K. , Cissé , G. , Dentener , F. , Eriksen , S. , Fischer , E. , Garner , G. , Guivarch , C. , Haasnoot , M. , Hansen , G. , Hauser , M. , Hawkins , E. , Hermans , T. , Kopp , R. , Leprince-Ringuet , N. , Lewis , J. , Ley , D. , Ludden , C. , Niamir , L. , Nicholls , Z. , Some , S. , Szopa , S. , Trewin , B. , Van Der Wijst , K.-I. , Winter , G. , Witting , M. , Birt , A. , Ha , M. , Romero , J. , Kim , J. , Haites , E.F. , Jung , Y. , Stavins , R. , Birt , A. , Ha , M. , Orendain , D.J.A. , Ignon , L. , Park , S. , Park , Y. , Reisinger , A. , Cammaramo , D. , Fischlin , A. , Fuglestvedt , J.S. , Hansen , G. , Ludden , C. , Masson-Delmotte , V. , Matthews , J.B.R. , Mintenbeck , K. , Pirani , A. , Poloczanska , E. , Leprince-Ringuet , N. , Péan , C. , 2023 . IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report . Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ Core Writing Team , H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Cao , Q. , Li , G. , Liu , F ., 2022 . Elevated CO2 enhanced water use efficiency of wheat to progressive drought stress but not on maize . Front. Plant Sci . 13 , 953712 . doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.953712 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Cassidy , E.S. , West , P.C. , Gerber , J.S. , Foley , J.A ., 2013 . Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare . Environ. Res. Lett . 8 , 034015 . doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Caubel , J. , García De Cortázar-Atauri , I. , Launay , M. , De Noblet-Ducoudré , N. , Huard , F. , Bertuzzi , P. , Graux , A.-I. , 2015 . Broadening the scope for ecoclimatic indicators to assess crop climate suitability according to ecophysiological, technical and quality criteria . Agric. For. Meteorol . 207 , 94 – 106 . doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.02.005 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Chavan , S.G. , Duursma , R.A. , Tausz , M. , Ghannoum , O ., 2022 . Moderate heat stress prevented the observed biomass and yield stimulation caused by elevated CO2 in two well-watered wheat cultivars . Plant Mol. Biol . 110 , 365 – 384 . doi: 10.1007/s11103-022-01276-7 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Chavan , S.G. , Duursma , R.A. , Tausz , M. , Ghannoum , O ., 2019 . Elevated CO2 alleviates the negative impact of heat stress on wheat physiology but not on grain yield . J. Exp. Bot . 70 , 6447 – 6459 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erz386 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Chenu , K. , 2015 . Characterizing the crop environment – nature, significance and applications , in: Crop Physiology . Elsevier , pp. 321 – 348 . doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-417104-6.00013-3 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Chenu , K. , Cooper , M. , Hammer , G.L. , Mathews , K.L. , Dreccer , M.F. , Chapman , S.C ., 2011 . Environment characterization as an aid to wheat improvement: interpreting genotype– environment interactions by modelling water-deficit patterns in North-Eastern Australia . J. Exp. Bot . 62 , 1743 – 1755 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq459 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Chenu , K. , Deihimfard , R. , Chapman , S.C ., 2013a . Large-scale characterization of drought pattern: a continent-wide modelling approach applied to the Australian wheatbelt – spatial and temporal trends . New Phytol . 198 , 801 – 820 . doi: 10.1111/nph.12192 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Chenu , K. , Doherty , A. , Rebetzke , G. , Chapman , S ., 2013b . StressMaster: a web application for dynamic modelling of the environment to assist in crop improvement for drought adaptation . ↵ Chenu , K. , Porter , J.R. , Martre , P. , Basso , B. , Chapman , S.C. , Ewert , F. , Bindi , M. , Asseng , S ., 2017 . Contribution of Crop Models to Adaptation in Wheat . Trends Plant Sci . 22 , 472 – 490 . doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.02.003 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Chenu , K. , Van Oosterom , E.J. , McLean , G. , Deifel , K.S. , Fletcher , A. , Geetika , G. , Tirfessa , A. , Mace , E.S. , Jordan , D.R. , Sulman , R. , Hammer , G.L. , 2018 . Integrating modelling and phenotyping approaches to identify and screen complex traits: transpiration efficiency in cereals . J. Exp. Bot . 69 , 3181 – 3194 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/ery059 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Christopher , J.T. , Christopher , M.J. , Borrell , A.K. , Fletcher , S. , Chenu , K ., 2016 . Stay-green traits to improve wheat adaptation in well-watered and water-limited environments . J. Exp. Bot . 67 , 5159 – 5172 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erw276 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Christopher , J.T. , Veyradier , M. , Borrell , A.K. , Harvey , G. , Fletcher , S. , Chenu , K ., 2014 . Phenotyping novel stay-green traits to capture genetic variation in senescence dynamics . Funct. Plant Biol . 41 , 1035 . doi: 10.1071/FP14052 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Collins , B. , Chapman , S. , Hammer , G. , Chenu , K ., 2021 . Limiting transpiration rate in high evaporative demand conditions to improve Australian wheat productivity . Silico Plants 3 , diab006 . doi: 10.1093/insilicoplants/diab006 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Collins , B. , Chenu , K ., 2021 . Improving productivity of Australian wheat by adapting sowing date and genotype phenology to future climate . Clim. Risk Manag . 32 , 100300 . doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2021.100300 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Dias De Oliveira , E. , Bramley , H. , Siddique , K.H.M. , Henty , S. , Berger , J. , Palta , J.A. , 2013 . Can elevated CO2 combined with high temperature ameliorate the effect of terminal drought in wheat? Funct. Plant Biol . 40 , 160 . doi: 10.1071/FP12206 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Dias De Oliveira , E. , Palta , J.A. , Bramley , H. , Stefanova , K. , Siddique , K.H.M. , 2015 . Elevated CO2 Reduced Floret Death in Wheat Under Warmer Average Temperatures and Terminal Drought . Front. Plant Sci . 6 . doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.01010 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Dolferus , R ., 2014 . To grow or not to grow: A stressful decision for plants . Plant Sci . 229 , 247 – 261 . doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.10.002 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Drake , B.G. , Gonzàlez-Meler , M.A. , Long , S.P ., 1997 . More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO 2 ? Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol . 48 , 609 – 639 . doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.609 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Dwivedi , S.K. , Kumar , S. , Prakash , V. , Mishra , J.S. , Singh , S.S. , Kumari , S ., 2017 . Influence of elevated CO2 and temperature on physiological traits and yield attributes of heat tolerant wheat genotype Halna grown inside open top chambers . Indian J. Plant Physiol . 22 , 94 – 100 . doi: 10.1007/s40502-016-0280-x OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Erice , G. , Sanz-Sáez , A. , Urdiain , A. , Araus , J.L. , Irigoyen , J.J. , Aranjuelo , I ., 2014 . Harvest index combined with impaired N availability constrains the responsiveness of durum wheat to elevated CO2 concentration and terminal water stress . Funct. Plant Biol . 41 , 1138 . doi: 10.1071/FP14045 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Ewert , F. , Rodriguez , D. , Jamieson , P. , Semenov , M.A. , Mitchell , R.A.C. , Goudriaan , J. , Porter , J.R. , Kimball , B.A. , Pinter , P.J. , Manderscheid , R. , Weigel , H.J. , Fangmeier , A. , Fereres , E. , Villalobos , F ., 2002 . Effects of elevated CO2 and drought on wheat: testing crop simulation models for different experimental and climatic conditions . Agric. Ecosyst. Environ . 93 , 249 – 266 . doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00352-8 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Farkas , Z. , Anda , A. , Vida , G. , Veisz , O. , Varga , B ., 2021 . CO2 Responses of Winter Wheat, Barley and Oat Cultivars under Optimum and Limited Irrigation . Sustainability 13 , 9931 . doi: 10.3390/su13179931 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Farooq , M. , Bramley , H. , Palta , J.A. , Siddique , K.H.M ., 2011 . Heat Stress in Wheat during Reproductive and Grain-Filling Phases . Crit. Rev. Plant Sci . 30 , 491 – 507 . doi: 10.1080/07352689.2011.615687 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Farooq , M. , Hussain , M. , Siddique , K.H.M ., 2014 . Drought Stress in Wheat during Flowering and Grain-filling Periods . Crit. Rev. Plant Sci . 33 , 331 – 349 . doi: 10.1080/07352689.2014.875291 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Farooq , M. , Wahid , A. , Kobayashi , N. , Fujita , D. , Basra , S.M.A ., 2009 . Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management . Agron. Sustain. Dev . 29 , 185 – 212 . doi: 10.1051/agro:2008021 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Fernando , N. , Panozzo , J. , Tausz , M. , Norton , R. , Fitzgerald , G. , Seneweera , S ., 2012 . Rising atmospheric CO2 concentration affects mineral nutrient and protein concentration of wheat grain . Food Chem . 133 , 1307 – 1311 . doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.01.105 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Fitzgerald , G.J. , Tausz , M. , O’Leary , G. , Mollah , M.R. , Tausz-Posch , S ., Seneweera , S. , Mock , I. , Löw , M. , Partington , D.L. , McNeil , D. , Norton , R.M. , 2016 . Elevated atmospheric [CO 2 ] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves . Glob. Change Biol . 22 , 2269 – 2284 . doi: 10.1111/gcb.13263 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Gelman , A. , Shalizi , C.R ., 2013 . Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics . Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol . 66 , 8 – 38 . doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02037.x OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Girousse , C. , Inchboard , L. , Deswarte , J.-C. , Chenu , K ., 2021 . How does post-flowering heat impact grain growth and its determining processes in wheat? J. Exp. Bot . 72 , 6596 – 6610 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab282 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Gouache , D. , Le Bris , X. , Bogard , M. , Deudon , O. , Pagé , C. , Gate , P. , 2012 . Evaluating agronomic adaptation options to increasing heat stress under climate change during wheat grain filling in France . Eur. J. Agron . 39 , 62 – 70 . doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2012.01.009 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Guntrip , J. , Sibly , R.M ., 1998 . Phenotypic plasticity, genotype-by-environment interaction and the analysis of generalism and specialization in Callosobruchus maculatus . Heredity 81 , 198 – 204 . doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.1998.00354.x OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Guoju , X. , Weixiang , L. , Qiang , X. , Zhaojun , S. , Jing , W ., 2005 . Effects of temperature increase and elevated CO2 concentration, with supplemental irrigation, on the yield of rain-fed spring wheat in a semiarid region of China . Agric. Water Manag . 74 , 243 – 255 . doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2004.11.006 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Hakala , K ., 1998 . Growth and yield potential of spring wheat in a simulated changed climate with increased CO2 and higher temperature . Eur. J. Agron . 9 , 41 – 52 . doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(98)00025-2 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Hallgrimsson , B. , Green , R.M. , Katz , D.C. , Fish , J.L. , Bernier , F.P. , Roseman , C.C. , Young , N.M. , Cheverud , J.M. , Marcucio , R.S ., 2019 . The developmental-genetics of canalization . Semin. Cell Dev. Biol . 88 , 67 – 79 . doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2018.05.019 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Hammer , G.L. , Van Oosterom , E. , McLean , G. , Chapman , S.C. , Broad , I. , Harland , P. , Muchow , R.C. , 2010 . Adapting APSIM to model the physiology and genetics of complex adaptive traits in field crops . J. Exp. Bot . 61 , 2185 – 2202 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq095 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Hansen , E.M.Ø. , Hauggaard-Nielsen , H. , Launay , M. , Rose , P. , Mikkelsen , T.N ., 2019 . The impact of ozone exposure, temperature and CO2 on the growth and yield of three spring wheat varieties . Environ. Exp. Bot . 168 , 103868 . doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2019.103868 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Harnos , N. , Bencze , S. , Janda , T. , Juhász , A. , Veisz , O ., 2002 . Interactions between Elevated CO2 and Water Stress in Two Winter Wheat Cultivars Differing in Drought Resistance . Cereal Res. Commun . 30 , 359 – 366 . doi: 10.1007/BF03543430 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Helman , D. , Bonfil , D.J ., 2022 . Six decades of warming and drought in the world’s top wheat-producing countries offset the benefits of rising CO2 to yield . Sci. Rep . 12 , 7921 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11423-1 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Hochman , Z. , Gobbett , D.L. , Horan , H ., 2017 . Climate trends account for stalled wheat yields in Australia since 1990 . Glob. Change Biol . 23 , 2071 – 2081 . doi: 10.1111/gcb.13604 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Högy , P. , Fangmeier , A ., 2008 . Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on grain quality of wheat . J. Cereal Sci . 48 , 580 – 591 . doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2008.01.006 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Hoover , D.L. , Wilcox , K.R. , Young , K.E ., 2018 . Experimental droughts with rainout shelters: a methodological review . Ecosphere 9 , e02088 . doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2088 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Hunt , J.R. , Hayman , P.T. , Richards , R.A. , Passioura , J.B ., 2018 . Opportunities to reduce heat damage in rain-fed wheat crops based on plant breeding and agronomic management . Field Crops Res . 224 , 126 – 138 . doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.05.012 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ IPCC (Ed.), 2014 . Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 1st ed. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Ji , X. , Shiran , B. , Wan , J. , Lewis , D.C. , Jenkins , C.L.D. , Condon , A.G. , Richards , R.A. , Dolferus , R ., 2010 . Importance of pre-anthesis anther sink strength for maintenance of grain number during reproductive stage water stress in wheat . Plant Cell Environ . 33 , 926 – 942 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02130.x OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Kadam , N.N. , Xiao , G. , Melgar , R.J. , Bahuguna , R.N. , Quinones , C. , Tamilselvan , A. , Prasad , P.V.V. , Jagadish , K.S.V. , 2014 . Agronomic and Physiological Responses to High Temperature, Drought, and Elevated CO2 Interactions in Cereals , in: Advances in Agronomy . Elsevier , pp. 111 – 156 . doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800131-8.00003-0 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Kaddour , A.A. , Fuller , M.P ., 2004 . The Effect of Elevated CO2 and Drought on the Vegetative Growth and Development of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Cultivars . Cereal Res. Commun . 32 , 225 – 232 . doi: 10.1007/BF03543303 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Kang , S. , Zhang , L. , Liang , Y. , Hu , X. , Cai , H. , Gu , B ., 2002 . Effects of limited irrigation on yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat in the Loess Plateau of China . Agric. Water Manag . 55 , 203 – 216 . doi: 10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00180-9 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Kimball , B.A. , Pinter , P.J. , Garcia , R.L. , LaMORTE , R.L. , Wall , G.W. , Hunsaker , D.J. , Wechsung , G. , Wechsung , F. , KARTSCHALLs, T., 1995 . Productivity and water use of wheat under free-air CO2 enrichment . Glob. Change Biol . 1 , 429 – 442 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00041.x OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Krause , S.M.B. , Szoboszlay , M. , Dier , M. , Erbs , M. , Manderscheid , R. , Weigel , H.-J. , Tebbe , C.C ., 2023 . Impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 on the wheat rhizomicrobiome under the additional influence of warming, drought, and nitrogen fertilization . Eur. J. Soil Biol . 117 , 103515 . doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2023.103515 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Le Roux , R. , Furusho-Percot , C. , Deswarte , J.-C. , Bancal , M.-O. , Chenu , K. , De Noblet-Ducoudré , N. , De Cortázar-Atauri , I.G. , Durand , A. , Bulut , B. , Maury , O. , Décome , J. , Launay , M. , 2024 . Mapping the race between crop phenology and climate risks for wheat in France under climate change . Sci. Rep . 14 , 8184 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-58826-w OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Leveau , S. , Parent , B. , Zaka , S. , Martre , P ., 2021 . Differential sensitivity to temperature and evaporative demand in wheat relatives . J. Exp. Bot. erab 431 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab431 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Levitt , J ., 1972 . Responses of plants to environmental stresses, Physiological ecology . Academic Press , New York . ↵ Li , S. , Wang , G. , Chai , Y. , Miao , L. , Fiifi Tawia Hagan , D. , Sun , S. , Huang , J. , Su , B. , Jiang , T. , Chen , T. , Lu , C. , Guan , Z., 2023 . Increasing vapor pressure deficit accelerates land drying . J. Hydrol . 625 , 130062 . doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130062 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Li , X. , Kristiansen , K. , Rosenqvist , E. , Liu , F ., 2019 . Elevated CO 2 modulates the effects of drought and heat stress on plant water relations and grain yield in wheat . J. Agron. Crop Sci . 205 , 362 – 371 . doi: 10.1111/jac.12330 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Liu , B. , Asseng , S. , Müller , C. , Ewert , F. , Elliott , J. , Lobell , D.B. , Martre , P. , Ruane , A.C. , Wallach , D. , Jones , J.W. , Rosenzweig , C. , Aggarwal , P.K. , Alderman , P.D. , Anothai , J. , Basso , B. , Biernath , C. , Cammarano , D. , Challinor , A. , Deryng , D. , Sanctis , G.D. , Doltra , J. , Fereres , E. , Folberth , C. , Garcia-Vila , M. , Gayler , S. , Hoogenboom , G. , Hunt , L.A. , Izaurralde , R.C. , Jabloun , M. , Jones , C.D. , Kersebaum , K.C. , Kimball , B.A. , Koehler , A.-K. , Kumar , S.N. , Nendel , C. , O’Leary , G.J. , Olesen , J.E. , Ottman , M.J. , Palosuo , T. , Prasad , P.V.V. , Priesack , E. , Pugh , T.A.M. , Reynolds , M. , Rezaei , E.E. , Rötter , R.P. , Schmid , E. , Semenov , M.A. , Shcherbak , I. , Stehfest , E. , Stöckle , C.O. , Stratonovitch , P. , Streck , T. , Supit , I. , Tao , F. , Thorburn , P. , Waha , K. , Wall , G.W. , Wang , E. , White , J.W. , Wolf , J. , Zhao , Z. , Zhu , Y. , 2016 . Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods . Nat. Clim. Change 6 , 1130 – 1136 . doi: 10.1038/nclimate3115 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Lobell , D.B. , Hammer , G.L. , Chenu , K. , Zheng , B. , McLean , G. , Chapman , S.C ., 2015 . The shifting influence of drought and heat stress for crops in northeast Australia . Glob. Change Biol . 21 , 4115 – 4127 . doi: 10.1111/gcb.13022 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Lobell , D.B. , Hammer , G.L. , McLean , G. , Messina , C. , Roberts , M.J. , Schlenker , W ., 2013 . The critical role of extreme heat for maize production in the United States. Nat . Clim. Change 3 , 497 – 501 . doi: 10.1038/nclimate1832 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ 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 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Long , S.P. , Ainsworth , E.A. , Leakey , A.D.B. , Nösberger , J. , Ort , D.R ., 2006 . Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO 2 Concentrations . Science 312 , 1918 – 1921 . doi: 10.1126/science.1114722 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Long , S.P. , Ainsworth , E.A. , Rogers , A. , Ort , D.R ., 2004 . Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide: plants FACE the future . Annu. Rev. Plant Biol . 55 , 591 – 628 . doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141610 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Macabuhay , A. , Houshmandfar , A. , Nuttall , J. , Fitzgerald , G.J. , Tausz , M. , Tausz-Posch , S ., 2018 . Can elevated CO2 buffer the effects of heat waves on wheat in a dryland cropping system? Environ. Exp. Bot . 155 , 578 – 588 . doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2018.07.029 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Makowski , D. , Marajo-Petitzon , E. , Durand , J.-L. , Ben-Ari , T ., 2020 . Quantitative synthesis of temperature, CO2, rainfall, and adaptation effects on global crop yields . Eur. J. Agron. 115 , 126041 . doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2020.126041 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Manderscheid , R. , Dier , M. , Erbs , M. , Luig , A. , Oldenburg , E. , Sickora , J. , Weigel , H.-J ., 2020 . Experimental data from the Braunschweig FACE studies on wheat growth responses to elevated CO2 in combination with nitrogen supply or infrared warming during grain filling. Open Data J . Agric. Res . 6 , 28 – 33 . doi: 10.18174/odjar.v6i0.16397 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ McKee , I.F. , Woodward , F.I ., 1994 . CO 2 enrichment responses of wheat: interactions with temperature, nitrate and phosphate . New Phytol . 127 , 447 – 453 . doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb03962.x OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Medina , S. , Vicente , R. , Amador , A. , Araus , J.L ., 2016 . Interactive Effects of Elevated [CO2] and Water Stress on Physiological Traits and Gene Expression during Vegetative Growth in Four Durum Wheat Genotypes . Front. Plant Sci . 7 . doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01738 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Mitchell , R.A.C. , Lawlor , D.W. , Mitchell , V.J. , Gibbard , C.L. , White , E.M. , Porter , J.R ., 1995 . Effects of elevated CO 2 concentration and increased temperature on winter wheat: test of ARCWHEAT1 simulation model . Plant Cell Environ . 18 , 736 – 748 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00576.x OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Mitchell , R.A.C. , Mitchell , V.J. , Driscoll , S.P. , Franklin , J. , Lawlor , D.W ., 1993 . Effects of increased CO 2 concentration and temperature on growth and yield of winter wheat at two levels of nitrogen application . Plant Cell Environ . 16 , 521 – 529 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1993.tb00899.x OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Morel , J. , Kumar , U. , Ahmed , M. , Bergkvist , G. , Lana , M. , Halling , M. , Parsons , D ., 2021 . Quantification of the Impact of Temperature, CO2, and Rainfall Changes on Swedish Annual Crops Production Using the APSIM Model . Front. Sustain. Food Syst . 5 , 665025 . doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.665025 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Moshelion , M. , Dietz , K.-J. , Dodd , I.C. , Muller , B. , Lunn , J.E ., 2024 . Guidelines for designing and interpreting drought experiments in controlled conditions . J. Exp. Bot . 75 , 4671 – 4679 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erae292 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Myers , S.S. , Zanobetti , A. , Kloog , I. , Huybers , P. , Leakey , A.D.B. , Bloom , A.J. , Carlisle , E. , Dietterich , L.H. , Fitzgerald , G. , Hasegawa , T. , Holbrook , N.M. , Nelson , R.L. , Ottman , M.J. , Raboy , V. , Sakai , H. , Sartor , K.A. , Schwartz , J. , Seneweera , S. , Tausz , M. , Usui , Y ., 2014 . Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition . Nature 510 , 139 – 142 . doi: 10.1038/nature13179 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Ogbaga , C.C. , Athar , H.-R. , Amir , M. , Bano , H. , Chater , C.C.C. , Jellason , N.P ., 2020 . Clarity on frequently asked questions about drought measurements in plant physiology . Sci. Afr . 8 , e00405 . doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00405 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ O’Leary , G.J. , Christy , B. , Nuttall , J. , Huth , N. , Cammarano , D. , Stöckle , C. , Basso , B. , Shcherbak , I. , Fitzgerald , G. , Luo , Q. , Farre-Codina, I., Palta, J., Asseng, S., 2015 . Response of wheat growth, grain yield and water use to elevated CO 2 under a Free-Air CO 2 Enrichment ( FACE ) experiment and modelling in a semi-arid environment . Glob. Change Biol . 21 , 2670 – 2686 . doi: 10.1111/gcb.12830 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Ottman , M.J. , Kimball , B.A. , White , J.W. , Wall , G.W ., 2012 . Wheat Growth Response to Increased Temperature from Varied Planting Dates and Supplemental Infrared Heating . Agron. J . 104 , 7 – 16 . doi: 10.2134/agronj2011.0212 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Ngui Kimatu , J. Parthasarathi , T. , Firdous , S. , Mariya David , E. , Lesharadevi , K. , Djanaguiraman , M ., 2022 . Effects of High Temperature on Crops , in: Ngui Kimatu , J. (Ed.), Advances in Plant Defense Mechanisms . IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.105945 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Poudyal , D. , Rosenqvist , E. , Ottosen , C.-O ., 2019 . Phenotyping from lab to field – tomato lines screened for heat stress using Fv/Fm maintain high fruit yield during thermal stress in the field . Funct. Plant Biol . 46 , 44 . doi: 10.1071/FP17317 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Prakash , V. , Dwivedi , S.K. , Kumar , S. , Mishra , J.S. , Rao , K.K. , Singh , S.S. , Bhatt , B.P ., 2017 . Effect of elevated CO2 and temperature on growth and yield of wheat grown in sub-humid climate of eastern Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) . MAUSAM 68 , 499 – 506 . doi: 10.54302/mausam.v68i3.702 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Prasad , P.V.V. , Pisipati , S.R. , Momčilović , I. , Ristic , Z ., 2011 . Independent and Combined Effects of High Temperature and Drought Stress During Grain Filling on Plant Yield and Chloroplast EF-Tu Expression in Spring Wheat: Effects of Temperature and Drought on Wheat Plants . J. Agron. Crop Sci . 197 , 430 – 441 . doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00477.x OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Prasad , P.V.V. , Pisipati , S.R. , Ristic , Z. , Bukovnik , U. , Fritz , A.K ., 2008 . Impact of Nighttime Temperature on Physiology and Growth of Spring Wheat . Crop Sci . 48 , 2372 – 2380 . doi: 10.2135/cropsci2007.12.0717 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Puértolas , J. , Larsen , E.K. , Davies , W.J. , Dodd , I.C ., 2017 . Applying ‘drought’ to potted plants by maintaining suboptimal soil moisture improves plant water relations . J. Exp. Bot . 68 , 2413 – 2424 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx116 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Singh , S.N. Qaderi , M.M. , Reid , D.M. , 2009 . Crop Responses to Elevated Carbon Dioxide and Temperature , in: Singh , S.N. (Ed.), Climate Change and Crops, Environmental Science and Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg , Berlin, Heidelberg , pp. 1 – 18 . doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88246-6_1 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Qaseem , M.F. , Qureshi , R. , Shaheen , H ., 2019 . Effects of Pre-Anthesis Drought, Heat and Their Combination on the Growth, Yield and Physiology of diverse Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes Varying in Sensitivity to Heat and drought stress . Sci. Rep . 9 , 6955 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43477-z OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Carver , B.F. Rebetzke , G.J. , Chapman , S.C. , McIntyre , C.L. , Richards , R.A. , Condon , A.G. , Watt , M. , Van Herwaarden , A.F. , 2009 . Grain Yield Improvement in Water-Limited Environments , in: Carver , B.F. (Ed.), Wheat Science and Trade . Wiley , pp. 215 – 249 . doi: 10.1002/9780813818832.ch11 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Rezaei , E.E. , Webber , H. , Asseng , S. , Boote , K. , Durand , J.L. , Ewert , F. , Martre , P. , MacCarthy , D.S ., 2023 . Climate change impacts on crop yields . Nat. Rev. Earth Environ . 4 , 831 – 846 . doi: 10.1038/s43017-023-00491-0 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Rivero , R.M. , Mittler , R. , Blumwald , E. , Zandalinas , S.I ., 2022 . Developing climate-resilient crops: improving plant tolerance to stress combination . Plant J . 109 , 373 – 389 . doi: 10.1111/tpj.15483 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Sadok , W. , Lopez , J.R. , Smith , K.P ., 2021 . Transpiration increases under high-temperature stress: Potential mechanisms, trade-offs and prospects for crop resilience in a warming world . Plant Cell Environ . 44 , 2102 – 2116 . doi: 10.1111/pce.13970 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Salisbury , F.B. , Ross , C.W ., 1992 . Plant physiology , 4th ed. ed. Wadsworth Pub. Co, Belmont, Calif . ↵ Sallam , A. , Alqudah , A.M. , Dawood , M.F.A. , Baenziger , P.S. , Börner , A. , 2019 . Drought Stress Tolerance in Wheat and Barley: Advances in Physiology, Breeding and Genetics Research . Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20 , 3137 . doi: 10.3390/ijms20133137 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Scafaro , A.P. , Posch , B.C. , Evans , J.R. , Farquhar , G.D. , Atkin , O.K ., 2023 . Rubisco deactivation and chloroplast electron transport rates co-limit photosynthesis above optimal leaf temperature in terrestrial plants . Nat. Commun . 14 , 2820 . doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-38496-4 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Schoppach , R. , Sadok , W ., 2012 . Differential sensitivities of transpiration to evaporative demand and soil water deficit among wheat elite cultivars indicate different strategies for drought tolerance . Environ. Exp. Bot . 84 , 1 – 10 . doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.04.016 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Shanmugam , S. , Kjaer , K.H. , Ottosen , C.-O. , Rosenqvist , E. , Kumari Sharma , D. , Wollenweber , B ., 2013 . The Alleviating Effect of Elevated CO 2 on Heat Stress Susceptibility of Two Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivars . J. Agron. Crop Sci . 199 , 340 – 350 . doi: 10.1111/jac.12023 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Shazadi , K. , Christopher , J.T. , Chenu , K ., 2024 . Does late water deficit induce root growth or senescence in wheat? Front. Plant Sci . 15 , 1351436 . doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1351436 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Shokat , S. , Novák , O. , Široká , J. , Singh , S. , Gill , K.S. , Roitsch , T. , Großkinsky , D.K. , Liu , F ., 2021 . Elevated CO2 modulates the effect of heat stress responses in Triticum aestivum by differential expression of an isoflavone reductase -like gene . J. Exp. Bot. erab 247 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab247 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Slafer , G.A. , Foulkes , M.J. , Reynolds , M.P. , Murchie , E.H. , Carmo-Silva , E. , Flavell , R. , Gwyn , J. , Sawkins , M. , Griffiths , S ., 2023 . A ‘wiring diagram’ for sink strength traits impacting wheat yield potential . J. Exp. Bot . 74 , 40 – 71 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erac410 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Tardieu , F. , Simonneau , T. , Muller , B ., 2018 . The Physiological Basis of Drought Tolerance in Crop Plants: A Scenario-Dependent Probabilistic Approach . Annu. Rev. Plant Biol . 69 , 733 – 759 . doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042817-040218 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Tausz-Posch , S ., Tausz , M. , Bourgault , M. , 2020 . Elevated [ CO 2 ] effects on crops: Advances in understanding acclimation, nitrogen dynamics and interactions with drought and other organisms . Plant Biol . 22 , 38 – 51 . doi: 10.1111/plb.12994 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Thistlethwaite , Rebecca. J. , Tan , Daniel. K.Y. , Bokshi , Anowarul. I. , Ullah , S. , Trethowan , Richard. M. , 2020 . A phenotyping strategy for evaluating the high-temperature tolerance of wheat . Field Crops Res . 255 , 107905 . doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107905 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Toreti , A. , Deryng , D. , Tubiello , F.N. , Müller , C. , Kimball , B.A. , Moser , G. , Boote , K. , Asseng , S. , Pugh , T.A.M. , Vanuytrecht , E. , Pleijel , H. , Webber , H. , Durand , J.-L. , Dentener , F. , Ceglar , A. , Wang , X. , Badeck , F. , Lecerf , R. , Wall , G.W. , van den Berg , M ., Hoegy , P. , Lopez-Lozano , R. , Zampieri , M. , Galmarini , S. , O’Leary , G.J. , Manderscheid , R. , Mencos Contreras , E. , Rosenzweig , C. , 2020 . Narrowing uncertainties in the effects of elevated CO2 on crops . Nat. Food 1 , 775 – 782 . doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-00195-4 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Triboi , E. , Martre , P. , Girousse , C. , Ravel , C. , Triboi-Blondel , A.-M ., 2006 . Unravelling environmental and genetic relationships between grain yield and nitrogen concentration for wheat . Eur. J. Agron . 25 , 108 – 118 . doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2006.04.004 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Ulfat , A. , Mehmood , A. , Ahmad , K.S. , Ul-Allah , S ., 2021 . Elevated carbon dioxide offers promise for wheat adaptation to heat stress by adjusting carbohydrate metabolism . Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 27 , 2345 – 2355 . doi: 10.1007/s12298-021-01080-5 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Ullah , N. , Christopher , J. , Frederiks , T. , Ma , S. , Tan , D.K. , Chenu , K ., 2023a . A robust field-based method to screen heat tolerance in wheat . Eur. J. Agron . 144 , 126757 . doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2023.126757 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Ullah , N. , Collins , B. , Christopher , J. , Frederiks , T. , Chenu , K. , 2023b . Pre- and post-flowering impacts of natural heat events on yield components in wheat . bioRxiv . ↵ Ullah , N. , Collins , B. , Christopher , J.T. , Frederiks , T. , Chenu , K ., 2024 . Pre- and post-flowering impacts of natural heatwaves on yield components in wheat . Field Crops Res . 316 , 109489 . doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2024.109489 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Vadez , V. , Grondin , A. , Chenu , K. , Henry , A. , Laplaze , L. , Millet , E.J. , Carminati , A ., 2024 . Crop traits and production under drought . Nat. Rev. Earth Environ . doi: 10.1038/s43017-023-00514-w OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Van Der Kooi , C.J. , Reich , M. , Löw , M. , De Kok , L.J. , Tausz , M. , 2016 . Growth and yield stimulation under elevated CO 2 and drought: A meta-analysis on crops . Environ. Exp. Bot . 122 , 150 – 157 . doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2015.10.004 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Vanuytrecht , E. , Thorburn , P.J ., 2017 . Responses to atmospheric CO 2 concentrations in crop simulation models: a review of current simple and semicomplex representations and options for model development . Glob. Change Biol . 23 , 1806 – 1820 . doi: 10.1111/gcb.13600 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Varga , B. , Vida , G. , Varga-László , E. , Hoffmann , B. , Veisz , O ., 2017 . Combined Effect of Drought Stress and Elevated Atmospheric CO 2 Concentration on the Yield Parameters and Water Use Properties of Winter Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes . J. Agron. Crop Sci . 203 , 192 – 205 . doi: 10.1111/jac.12176 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Wan , C. , Dang , P. , Gao , L. , Wang , J. , Tao , J. , Qin , X. , Feng , B. , Gao , J ., 2022 . How Does the Environment Affect Wheat Yield and Protein Content Response to Drought? A Meta-Analysis . Front. Plant Sci . 13 , 896985 . doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.896985 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Wang , E. , Martre , P. , Zhao , Z. , Ewert , F. , Maiorano , A. , Rötter , R.P. , Kimball , B.A. , Ottman , M.J. , Wall , G.W. , White , J.W. , Reynolds , M.P. , Alderman , P.D. , Aggarwal , P.K. , Anothai , J. , Basso , B. , Biernath , C. , Cammarano , D. , Challinor , A.J. , De Sanctis , G. , Doltra , J. , Dumont , B. , Fereres , E. , Garcia-Vila , M. , Gayler , S. , Hoogenboom , G. , Hunt , L.A. , Izaurralde , R.C. , Jabloun , M. , Jones , C.D. , Kersebaum , K.C. , Koehler , A.-K. , Liu , L. , Müller , C. , Naresh Kumar , S. , Nendel , C. , O’Leary , G. , Olesen , J.E. , Palosuo , T. , Priesack , E. , Eyshi Rezaei , E. , Ripoche , D. , Ruane , A.C. , Semenov , M.A. , Shcherbak , I. , Stöckle , C. , Stratonovitch , P. , Streck , T. , Supit , I. , Tao , F. , Thorburn , P. , Waha , K. , Wallach , D. , Wang , Z. , Wolf , J. , Zhu , Y. , Asseng , S. , 2017 . The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions . Nat. Plants 3 , 17102 . doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.102 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Nendel , C. Wang , E. , Teixeira , E. , The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, New Zealand, Zheng , B. , CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Australia, Hughes , N. , Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), Australia, Chenu , K. , The University of Queensland, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), Australia, Hunt , J. , University of Melbourne, Australia, Ghahramani , A. , University of Southern Queensland, Australia, Potgieter , A.B. , The University of Queensland, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), Australia, Zhu , J. , The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, New Zealand, Cichota , R. , The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, New Zealand, Huth, N., CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Australia, 2023 . Modelling the impact of climate change on agriculture in Australia and Oceania , in: Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Germany , Nendel , C. (Eds.), Burleigh Dodds Series in Agricultural Science. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing , pp. 481 – 540 . doi: 10.19103/AS.2022.0115.17 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Wang , L. , Li , L. , Song , Y. , Han , T. , Li , Z. , Wan , G. , Chen , F ., 2018 . Elevated CO 2 and temperature alter specific-species population dynamic and interspecific competition of three wheat aphids . J. Appl. Entomol . 142 , 863 – 872 . doi: 10.1111/jen.12536 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Wang , Z. , Wang , C. , Liu , S ., 2022 . Elevated CO 2 alleviates adverse effects of drought on plant water relations and photosynthesis: A global meta-analysis . J. Ecol . 110 , 2836 – 2849 . doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.13988 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Watson , J. , Zheng , B. , Chapman , S. , Chenu , K ., 2017 . Projected impact of future climate on water-stress patterns across the Australian wheatbelt . J. Exp. Bot . 68 , 5907 – 5921 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx368 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Wen , P. , Meng , Y. , Gao , C. , Guan , X. , Wang , T. , Feng , W ., 2023 . Field identification of drought tolerant wheat genotypes using canopy vegetation indices instead of plant physiological and biochemical traits . Ecol. Indic . 154 , 110781 . doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110781 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Wright , A.J. , Collins , S.L ., 2024 . Drought experiments need to incorporate atmospheric drying to better simulate climate change . BioScience 74 , 65 – 71 . doi: 10.1093/biosci/biad105 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Wu , D.-X. , Wang , G.-X. , Bai , Y.-F. , Liao , J.-X ., 2004 . Effects of elevated CO2 concentration on growth, water use, yield and grain quality of wheat under two soil water levels . Agric. Ecosyst. Environ . 104 , 493 – 507 . doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.018 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Yahya , M. , Ullah , N. , Christopher , J. , Chenu , K. , 2022 . Can stay-green help to increase heat tolerance in wheat? ↵ Yang , J. , Yang , R. , Liang , X. , Marshall , J.M. , Neibling , W ., 2023 . Impact of drought stress on spring wheat grain yield and quality . Agrosystems Geosci. Environ . 6 , e20351 . doi: 10.1002/agg2.20351 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Zahra , N. , Hafeez , M.B. , Wahid , A. , Al Masruri , M.H. , Ullah , A. , Siddique , K.H.M. , Farooq , M. , 2023 . Impact of climate change on wheat grain composition and quality . J. Sci. Food Agric . 103 , 2745 – 2751 . doi: 10.1002/jsfa.12289 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Zandalinas , S.I. , Fritschi , F.B. , Mittler , R ., 2021 . Global Warming, Climate Change, and Environmental Pollution: Recipe for a Multifactorial Stress Combination Disaster . Trends Plant Sci . 26 , 588 – 599 . doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2021.02.011 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Zhang , X. , Högy , P. , Wu , X. , Schmid , I. , Wang , X. , Schulze , W.X. , Jiang , D. , Fangmeier , A ., 2018 . Physiological and Proteomic Evidence for the Interactive Effects of Post-Anthesis Heat Stress and Elevated CO 2 on Wheat . PROTEOMICS 18 , 1800262 . doi: 10.1002/pmic.201800262 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Zhao , C. , Liu , B. , Piao , S. , Wang , X. , Lobell , D.B. , Huang , Y. , Huang , M. , Yao , Y. , Bassu , S. , Ciais , P. , Durand , J.-L. , Elliott , J. , Ewert , F. , Janssens , I.A. , Li , T. , Lin , E. , Liu , Q. , Martre , P. , Müller , C. , Peng , S. , Peñuelas , J. , Ruane , A.C. , Wallach , D. , Wang , T. , Wu , D. , Liu , Z. , Zhu , Y. , Zhu , Z. , Asseng , S. , 2017 . Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci . 114 , 9326 – 9331 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.1701762114 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Zheng , B. , Chapman , S. , Chenu , K ., 2018 . The Value of Tactical Adaptation to El Niño–Southern Oscillation for East Australian Wheat . Climate 6 , 77 . doi: 10.3390/cli6030077 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Zheng , B. , Chapman , S.C. , Christopher , J.T. , Frederiks , T.M. , Chenu , K ., 2015 . Frost trends and their estimated impact on yield in the Australian wheatbelt . J. Exp. Bot . 66 , 3611 – 3623 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv163 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Zheng , B. , Chenu , K. , Fernanda Dreccer , M. , Chapman , S.C ., 2012 . Breeding for the future: what are the potential impacts of future frost and heat events on sowing and flowering time requirements for A ustralian bread wheat ( T riticum aestivium ) varieties? Glob. Change Biol . 18 , 2899 – 2914 . doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02724.x OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Zhu , C. , Wolf , J. , Zhang , J. , Anderegg , W.R.L. , Bunce , J.A. , Ziska , L.H. , 2023 . Rising temperatures can negate CO2 fertilization effects on global staple crop yields: A meta-regression analysis . Agric. For. Meteorol. 342 , 109737 . doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109737 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Zscheischler , J. , Westra , S. , Van Den Hurk , B.J.J.M. , Seneviratne , S.I. , Ward , P.J. , Pitman , A. , AghaKouchak , A. , Bresch , D.N. , Leonard , M. , Wahl , T. , Zhang , X. , 2018 . Future climate risk from compound events . Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 469 – 477 . doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0156-3 OpenUrl CrossRef View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted February 12, 2025. Download PDF Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Plant plasticity in the face of climate change – CO2 offsetting effects to warming and water deficit in wheat. A review Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Plant plasticity in the face of climate change – CO 2 offsetting effects to warming and water deficit in wheat. A review Meije Gawinowski , Karine Chenu , Jean-Charles Deswarte , Marie Launay , Marie-Odile Bancal bioRxiv 2025.02.10.637370; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.10.637370 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Plant plasticity in the face of climate change – CO 2 offsetting effects to warming and water deficit in wheat. A review Meije Gawinowski , Karine Chenu , Jean-Charles Deswarte , Marie Launay , Marie-Odile Bancal bioRxiv 2025.02.10.637370; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.10.637370 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Plant Biology Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7637) Biochemistry (17705) Bioengineering (13899) Bioinformatics (41970) Biophysics (21463) Cancer Biology (18605) Cell Biology (25526) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13385) Ecology (19911) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24329) Genetics (15615) Genomics (22514) Immunology (17743) Microbiology (40424) Molecular Biology (17194) Neuroscience (88650) Paleontology (667) Pathology (2835) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4827) Physiology (7648) Plant Biology (15160) Scientific Communication and Education (2046) Synthetic Biology (4302) Systems Biology (9825) Zoology (2271)