Response to Comment on "Unexpected reversal of C3 versus C4 grass response to elevated CO2 during a 20-year field experiment"

Peter B Reich; Sarah E Hobbie; Tali D Lee; Melissa A Pastore

doi:10.1126/science.aau1300

Response to Comment on "Unexpected reversal of C₃ versus C₄ grass response to elevated CO₂ during a 20-year field experiment"

Science. 2018 Aug 10;361(6402):eaau1300. doi: 10.1126/science.aau1300.

Authors

Peter B Reich^{1

2}, Sarah E Hobbie³, Tali D Lee⁴, Melissa A Pastore³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. [email protected].
² Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2753, Australia.
³ Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
⁴ Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, WI 54701, USA.

PMID: 30093575
DOI: 10.1126/science.aau1300

Abstract

Wolf and Ziska suggest that soil and species attributes can explain an unexpected 20-year reversal of C₃-C₄ grass responses to elevated CO₂ This is consistent with our original interpretation; however, we disagree with the assertion that such explanations somehow render our results irrelevant for questioning a long-standing paradigm of plant response to CO₂ based on C₃-C₄ differences in photosynthetic pathway.

Publication types

Comment

MeSH terms

Carbon Dioxide*
Photosynthesis
Plant Leaves
Poaceae*
Soil

Substances

Soil
Carbon Dioxide