Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Ziska, L.H. Rising Carbon
Dioxide and Global Nutrition:
Evidence and Action Needed. Plants
2022,11, 1000. https://doi.org/
10.3390/plants11071000
Academic Editor: James Bunce
Received: 22 March 2022
Accepted: 6 April 2022
Published: 6 April 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
plants
Review
Rising Carbon Dioxide and Global Nutrition: Evidence and
Action Needed
Lewis H. Ziska
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA; lhz2103@cumc.columbia.edu
Abstract:
While the role of CO
2
as a greenhouse gas in the context of global warming is widely
acknowledged, additional data from multiple sources is demonstrating that rising CO
2
of and by
itself will have a tremendous effect on plant biology. This effect is widely recognized for its role
in stimulating photosynthesis and growth for multiple plant species, including crops. However,
CO
2
is also likely to alter plant chemistry in ways that will denigrate plant nutrition. That role
is also of tremendous importance, not only from a human health viewpoint, but also from a
global food–web perspective. Here, the goal is to review the current evidence, propose potential
mechanistic explanations, provide an overview of critical unknowns and to elucidate a series of
next steps that can address what is, overall, a critical but unappreciated aspect of anthropogenic
climate change.
Keywords: CO2; nutrition; protein; food web; iron; zinc
1. Introduction
The impact of increasing anthropogenic global-warming gases in the context of physi-
cal disturbance, i.e., changes in temperature, rainfall, extreme storms and sea level rise is
widely recognized by the public at large. Less recognized is the direct effect of a primary
greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide (CO
2
) on plant biology. Yet, there are literally hundreds
of studies showing that recent and projected increases in carbon dioxide concentration
[CO
2
] can stimulate photosynthesis and the growth and phenology of approximately 90%
of all known plant species, i.e., those who rely solely on the C
3
photosynthetic pathway. As
plants are autotrophs, and the sole suppliers of energy and elements to all living things,
it is not an exaggeration to say that rising [CO
2
] will, by directly altering plant biology,
influence all life on earth.
Should this influence then be seen as uniformly beneficial, a “green is good” counter-
weight to the physical disruptions associated with anthropogenic climate change? Caution
should be exercised in such an interpretation, as it is also clear that [CO
2
] will have non-
uniform benefits for plants, communities and ecosystems. For example, there is clear
evidence that at the agricultural level, weeds can respond more than crops to [CO
2
], with
consequences for crop production. For other biomes, there are reports that increasing [CO
2
]
may favor the growth of invasive plants over native species [
1
], or vines over trees, [
2
] with
subsequent disruptions to ecosystem function and biodiversity.
However, it is the direct effect of rising [CO
2
] on plant chemistry and stoichiometry
that represents a continuing threat to the nutritional integrity of both human and animal
systems. The earliest acknowledgement of [CO2] on nutritional aspects are by Sionit [3,4],
reporting that leaves growing in elevated [CO
2
] had higher carbohydrate levels, higher
C:N ratios and lower leaf nitrogen. These observations have gained credence over time,
including multiple meta-analyses [
5
–
10
]. Currently, there is extensive evidence from
multiple studies and meta-analyses that increasing [CO
2
] will reduce protein and mineral
concentrations from a wide-variety of plant-based food sources, with substantial global
consequences for human and animal nutrition. The basis for this reduction, an assessment
Plants 2022,11, 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11071000 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/plants
Plants 2022,11, 1000 2 of 11
of the potential impacts for human nutrition and for global food webs, critical unknowns
and crucial next steps are assessed in the current review in the hope that attention can be
paid to this overlooked and pervasive aspect of anthropogenic climate change.
2. Evidence and Mechanism
Crop breeding has not been static in the last 100+ years. Such efforts in conjunction
with modern management techniques (fertilizer, pesticides) etc., reflect a hybridization of
increased yield for numerous fruits and vegetables. It is reasonable to assume that modern
crops that grow larger and faster may not acquire nutrients in proportion and are likely
to decline in nutritional concentration. Jarrell and Beverly [
11
] provide an overview of a
“dilution effect,” whereby yield-enhancing methods, such as fertilization and irrigation
could decrease nutrient concentration. An evaluation of 43 foods (primarily vegetables) by
Davis et al. [
12
] indicated statistical declines for protein, Ca, P, Fe riboflavin and ascorbic
acid from 1950 to 1999, suggesting that cultivar selection for larger produce may represent
trade-offs between yield and nutrient content.
Is this then an “Occam’s razor” explanation for the observation that rising [CO
2
] is
resulting in a ubiquitous dilution in protein and minerals? Such a response would be
consistent with any [CO2]-stimulation effect on photosynthesis and growth.
Yet, at present there is limited evidence for a simple dilution hypothesis. For example,
a study of spring wheat lines from the early to late 20th century did indicate that newer
lines had less protein in flour; however, each cultivar also showed a decline in protein with
increasing [CO
2
] from the early 20th century (Figure 1). As spring wheat does not outcross
per se, this suggests that [CO
2
] is directly affecting protein concentration separate from
breeding history [13].
Figure 1.
Selected changes in average grain quality (percent flour protein) showing
±
SE as a function
of CO
2
concentration for the 20th century for different spring wheat lines. Data are redrawn from [
13
].
A dilution hypothesis is not supported from numerous studies where the degree of
nitrogen or protein dilution is independent of the relative stimulation of elevated [CO
2
]
on grain yield. For example, in a meta-analysis of 11 field-grown wheat cultivars, in over
eight countries, grain protein content decreases on average by 7% under elevated [CO
2
],
but the extent of the decline was independent of N application rate [14].
Plants 2022,11, 1000 3 of 11
Overall, the basis for the nutritional decline is still being investigated [
15
]. An
alternative hypothesis to dilution may be that less demand for nutrients occurs under
elevated [CO
2
] conditions, e.g., less Rubisco e.g., [
16
,
17
]; however, this has not been
specifically examined in the context of whether less nutrient demand is proportional
to the degree of [CO
2
]-induced stimulation with additional nitrogen e.g., [
14
]. Lower
plant nitrogen concentrations have also been suggested in response to decreased pho-
torespiration at elevated [CO
2
], as reductions in photorespiration could inhibit shoot
nitrate assimilation [
18
]; however, in field systems, ammonia is quickly converted to
nitrate (days) [
19
] and such an explanation would not account for a decline in other
elemental nutrients (e.g., Fe, Zn) [
7
]. In the long-term, reduced [CO
2
] induced declines
in nutritional composition and could also result in a reduction in decomposition rates
and reduced availability of critical nutritional components such as nitrogen [
20
]. How-
ever, such an explanation would not account for reductions in nitrogen concentration in
well-fertilized annual crops or single season experimental results [14].
One factor of interest may be the indirect effect of rising [CO
2
] on stomatal aperture.
As [CO
2
] increases, leaf stomata close and transpirational water flux is reduced. In
turn, elemental uptake associated with mass flow is reduced [
21
]. This is consistent
with observations that nutrients that were transported towards the roots primarily
through transpiration-driven mass flow exhibited larger concentration decreases at
elevated [CO
2
], compared to nutrients that mostly relied on diffusion, consistent with
this hypothesis [
15
]. However, additional data, especially from C
4
crops, is needed to
confirm such as response.
3. Temperature, CO2and Nutritional Balance
Carbon dioxide is not just the source of carbon for photosynthesis and growth, but a
longwave-radiation trapping gas, with consequences for surface temperatures. Concurrent
changes in both parameters are likely. Given this, how will simultaneous increases in [CO
2
]
and temperature alter plant nutrition?
Overall, less experimental data is available that has examined both parameters
relative to protein and mineral concentrations. For a soybean cultivar grown in situ at
warmer temperatures, elevated [CO
2
] reduced Fe and Zn, but high temperature and ele-
vated [CO
2
] showed no reductions relative to the control [
22
]. Wang et al. [
23
] reported
that warming could only partially negate the impact of elevated [CO
2
] on grain protein
concentration at the expense of grain yield, not fully offsetting the negative effects of
climate change on crop production. Recently, Wei et al. [
24
] showed no compensatory
effect of elevated temperature and CO
2
concentration relative to elevated [CO
2
] per se;
rather, some amino acid profiles declined further with [CO
2
] and temperature increased
relative to the control (Table 1). Other field-based experiments have shown a decline
in protein, with increasing [CO
2
] and no beneficial effect of warming temperatures,
e.g., rice [25] and forage grasses [26].
Table 1.
Changes in essential amino acid composition (mg g
−1
) in rice grown at ambient (a) and
elevated CO
2
and temperature (e), aCaT, ambient check; aCeT, elevated temperature (+1.5
◦
C), eCaT
(+200 ppm CO2) and eCeT. Letters indicate significant differences. Data are from [24].
Amino Acid aCaT aCeT eCaT eCeT CO2Temp.
Histidine 1.62 a 1.61 a 1.47 ab 1.44 b 0.012 n.s
Isoleucine 2.39 a 2.38 a 2.14 a 2.14 a n.s n.s
Leucine 5.44 a 5.38 a 4.91 ab 4.81 b 0.018 n.s.
Lysine 2.45 a 2.49 a 2.27 bc 2.22 c 0.013 n.s.
Methionine 1.39 a 1.21 b 1.20 b 1.12 c 0.001 0.002
Phenylalanine 3.61 a 3.59 a 3.28 a 3.22 a n.s. n.s.
Threonine 2.66 a 2.67 a 2.46 ab 2.42 b 0.014 n.s.
Valine 3.99 a 3.97 a 3.60 a 3.59 a n.s. n.s.
TOTAL 23.55 a 23.31 a 21.34 ab 20.89 b 0.013 n.s.
Plants 2022,11, 1000 4 of 11
There is an obvious need to interpret any [CO
2
]-related declines in protein and mineral
nutrition relative to other physical changes associated with anthropogenic climate change,
including temperature, precipitation and extreme events. However, while data are limited,
there is no consistent evidence that warmer temperatures will negate any [CO
2
]-induced
changes in protein and/or mineral nutrition.
4. Assessment: Human Nutrition
With respect to staple crops, a meta-analysis of 228 observations on barley, potato,
rice and wheat reported reductions in protein concentrations that ranged from ca
−
10 to
−
15% [
6
]. A more extensive meta-analysis of 7761 pairs of observations over 130 species
and cultivars reported an average 8% decline in mineral concentrations, excepting Mn [
7
].
A meta-analysis of vegetable responses (57 articles and 1015 observations) reported declines
in the concentrations of protein, nitrate, magnesium, iron and zinc by 9.5%, 18%, 9.2%,
16.0% and 9.4%, respectively [9].
In assessing these data for trends, there are some generalizations. First, while protein
and mineral concentrations decline, carbon-based compounds may increase. This increase
is consistent across a wide range of crop species [
7
]. For example, for the meta-analysis
of vegetables, elevated [CO
2
] increased the concentrations of fructose, glucose and total
soluble sugar by 14.2%, 13.2% and 17.5%, respectively [
9
]. Secondly, the decline in protein
and minerals does not occur (or to a smaller extent) in leguminous plants such as soybean
and peanut when grown at elevated [CO
2
] [
7
]. Finally, there is agreement that C
4
grasses
will show less or no decline in quality with elevated [CO
2
] [
27
]. In context, however, among
the top-10 production food crops, soybean is the only legume, and corn and sorghum the
only C
4
species [
28
]. Consequently, any qualitative changes related to rising [CO
2
] will
have substantial consequences for human nutrition and public health.
These consequences can be evaluated with respect to three nutritional parameters
that show a ubiquitous decline in response to elevated [CO
2
] in studies and meta-analyses:
protein, iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn). Plants provide the bulk of global nutrients [
29
]: 63%
of dietary protein, 81% of the iron and 68% of the zinc. As stressed by Smith et al. [
30
],
reducing the nutritional density of plant sources could significantly affect the incidence
and severity of nutritional deficiency on a global basis, at a time when over two billion
people are already estimated to be nutritionally wanting.
Smith and Myers [
31
] did a global evaluation of elevated [CO
2
] consequences on
dietary intake or iron, zinc and protein for 151 countries, taking into account age and
sex and assuming constant diets while excluding other climatic impacts that could affect
food production. Assuming a 2050 population and moderate [CO
2
] projections (550 ppm
CO
2
by mid-century), they estimated that an additional 175 million people will become
zinc- deficient and an additional 122 million will become protein-deficient. For iron, they
estimate that 1.4 billion women of childbearing age and children under 5 for countries with
at least 20% anemia prevalence would lose ~4% of dietary iron.
Beach et al. [
32
] used projections of mid-century (550 ppm CO
2
) combined with
modelled future food supply results to estimate nutrient availability by country. They
estimate that projected increases in atmospheric [CO
2
] and nutritional declines in combi-
nation with [CO
2
] fertilization effects and climate influence on productivity will decrease
the global availability of nutrients by 19.5% for protein, 13.6% for iron and 14.6% for
zinc, relative to anticipated technology and market gains by 2050 [
32
]. Overall, the
countries that currently suffer from high levels of nutrient deficiency would continue to
be disproportionally affected.
The global health impacts of [CO
2
]-induced reductions in nutritional integrity are
considerable, and there is additional detail currently available as to the severity and
scope of these effects [
33
–
35
]. Overall, there is merited concern that hidden hunger,
a recognition of chronic dietary deficiencies, will be exacerbated by increasing [CO
2
].
Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to nutritional deficits [
36
]. In
addition, insufficient protein intake, consistent with micronutrient deficiencies, can
Plants 2022,11, 1000 5 of 11
restrict growth and tissue repair and result in low birthweight, wasting, stunting and
other health issues associated with
2.2 million annual deaths
in children less than 5 years
of age. Zinc deficiency is estimated to cause approximately 100,000 deaths per year
in children less than 5 years of age. The global burden of disease associated with iron
deficiency has been estimated at ca 200,000 deaths and 45 million disability-adjusted
life-years annually [37].
5. Assessment: Global Food Webs
There is warranted concern regarding the evidence for the ubiquitous effect of
increasing [CO
2
] on nutritional quality, human diets and health impacts. Yet, from a
systematic perspective, human diets are dependent on a small fraction of available food
sources, i.e., about 75% of human food is derived from 12 plant and 5 animal species [
38
].
Given the evidence that the effect of rising CO
2
on diminishing plant nutrition
may be global in scope, it is imperative to also understand how such an ongoing
change would impact all of the food web. Plants, from an ecological system’s view-
point, are the planet’s primary producers; consequently, any environmental aspect
that affects their function ([CO2] induced declines in protein and minerals), will have
comprehensive consequences.
Such impacts could be indirect, occurring in response to less foliar nitrogen/protein
and slower decomposition, with limited nutrient turnover at the ecosystem level [
20
,
39
].
However, such an indirect effect would be counter to observations that the supply of
nitrogen has been increasing since the mid-1900s in response to anthropogenic deposition
of reactive N from fertilizer production and fossil fuel combustion [
40
]. Interestingly, a
seminal study by McLaughlin et al. [
41
] examined the composition of stable carbon (C)
and N isotopes in leaf tissue from 545 herbarium specimens of 24 vascular plant species
collected in Kansas, USA from 1876 to 2008, and found that N availability had declined
in these grasslands despite decades of N deposition. Similarly, herbarium samples of
Canadian goldenrod showed an approximate 30% decline in N over the same period [
42
].
These data are consistent with a progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis and potential
increases in ecosystem N storage in response to increased atmospheric [CO
2
] [
41
]. A direct
effect is also possible. As noted previously [
14
,
15
], any decline in N due to elevated [CO
2
]
was observed as independent of N application rate, i.e., there could be a direct reduction in
N concentration separate from an anthropogenic deposition of N.
As with human food sources, direct or indirect effects of rising [CO
2
] on nutritional
quality may also result in physiological consequences. Such outcomes would be particularly
relevant in plant–insect interactions. Such interactions, or mutualisms, are a fundamental
cornerstone in the generation and maintenance of life on earth, including pollination,
protection and seed dispersal [
43
]. However, if recent and projected [CO
2
] affects nutritional
concentrations, e.g., pollen [42], what are the implications for global food webs?
One potential outcome is highlighted by Welti et al. [
44
]. In this seminal study, they
examined long-term datasets of grasshopper abundance in the Kansas prairie relative to
climate and seasonal elemental content. Consistent with a nutrient dilution hypothesis,
grass biomass doubled, but foliar concentrations of N, P, K and Na declined. The decline
accounted for 25% of the variation in grasshopper populations (the dominant herbivore in
the system) over a two-decade period. This suggested that a warmer, more CO
2
-enriched
environment could, in addition to other environmental constraints, such as habitat loss and
chemical pollution, lead to a decline in insect herbivores.
Insect populations, given their diversity and size, are difficult to monitor, but over-
all, any wide-spread nutritional decline would have substantial consequences for insect
fecundity and demographics, as well as for animals higher up in the food web. Such conse-
quences would also be evident for animals that consume plant material directly, including
koalas and pandas.
Plants 2022,11, 1000 6 of 11
6. Fundamental Unknowns
6.1. Mechanism
Although there is consensus that projected increases in [CO2] will adversely affect
protein (nitrogen) and other elemental minerals (Fe, Zn), the mechanistic basis for the
response is still unclear. A dilution process commensurate with [CO
2
] stimulation of
growth is often cited as the basis for the observed reductions; however, this seems
unlikely as nutrient concentrations are still decreased when growth is unaffected by
elevated [CO
2
] [
15
]. Indirect effects of reduced transpirational flow from [CO
2
]-induced
changes in stomatal closure could also account for nutritional reductions, but similar
reductions in C
4
species should also be evident and are not consistently observed [
27
].
Additional data specific to other key nutrients (e.g., iodine) that have not been quan-
tified are also needed [
7
,
35
]. Finally, research into decomposition of nutrient deficient
plant materials and soil effects related to storage and nutrient transfer are essential to
understand long-term mineral availability.
6.2. Other Elements
As stressed by Ebi et al. [
35
], although every chemical element necessary for plants
is also necessary for humans, the opposite is not true. Elements, including sodium (Na),
iodine (I), lithium (Li), selenium (Se), chromium (Cr) are non-essential to plants but nec-
essary to humans [
45
]. Conversely, other elements, most notably arsenic and lead, can be
present and benign in plants, but are known toxins to humans [
46
]. Yet, at present, our
knowledge regarding the role of rising [CO
2
], or [CO
2
] and climate, relative to changes in
the concentrations of these elements in plant sources, is extremely limited [47].
6.3. Interactions with Anthropogenic Parameters
The ongoing increase in [CO
2
] is not separate from other anthropogenic changes, no-
tably temporal and geographic shifts in temperature and precipitation, as well as projected
changes in extreme weather events. As evidenced by [CO
2
] by temperature interactions
relative to [CO
2
] effects on nutrition [
22
], additional evidence is essential to ascertain the
cohesion of [CO
2
] effects on nutritional integrity with concurrent physical changes (e.g,
drought). Such data would also assist to distinguish and understand physiological mech-
anisms related to [CO
2
] and nutritional use and the scope of [CO
2
]-induced changes in
nutritional plant profiles.
6.4. Global Food Webs
There has been an understandable focus on the role of rising [CO
2
] specific to
human nutrition. However, the broad range of [CO
2
]-induced declines in nutrition ob-
served for a number of plant taxa warrants much more research into the consequences
for global food webs. For example, studies from Germany and Puerto Rico suggest
significant, rapid declines in insect populations [
48
], and while a number of anthro-
pogenic influences are of interest, insects, like plants, are essential to every terrestrial
food web, and any link to [CO
2
]-induced changes in plant nutritional quality deserves
immediate entomological consideration. Overall, there is a clear and pressing need to
understand the direct role of rising [CO
2
] on ecological processes, with a merited focus
on biodiversity.
6.5. Plant Chemistry
Given the general shift in stoichiometry with additional [CO
2
], from a carbon rich,
nutrient poor composition, it is compelling to ascertain if such shifts are also altering
secondary plant chemistry. From a human perspective, elevated [CO
2
] has been associated
with declines in carotenoid concentration [
49
], as well as B vitamins, nicotine, scopolamine,
atropine and opioids [
50
–
52
]. From an ecological, food-web perspective, rising [CO
2
] can
compromise plant chemical defenses against invasive insects [
53
]. The basis for these
changes is unclear, and it has been suggested that the increase in carbon relative to other
Plants 2022,11, 1000 7 of 11
elements is reflected in secondary chemistry as a resource-use hypothesis; however, such a
response is not consistently evident [54].
7. Research Imperatives
Data relative to genetic, physiological and environmental factors associated with
mineral uptake, transport and utilization are necessary to understand the mechanistic role
of elevated [CO
2
] [
55
]. Data on additional minerals (e.g., I, Li) in response to [CO
2
] would
help to define these factors and to determine commonalities. Such a broader study of crop
species should, if possible, be undertaken using a wider range of growing conditions likely
to be encountered with anthropogenic climate change (e.g [CO
2
] and drought, [CO
2
] and
temperature). Increasing our understanding of mechanistic pathways that link [CO
2
] (and
climate change) to nutrition is a necessary step to develop effective interventions to ensure
global food security.
The need to compensate for [CO
2
] reductions in crop nutrition is an obvious re-
search priority. Such compensation can be at the genetic or the management level.
Genetically, it is interesting to note the range of [CO
2
]-induced changes in nutritional
concentration. For example, Zhu et al. [
50
] demonstrated a significant [CO
2
] by Zn inter-
action in rice, suggesting inherent genetic variability in maintaining Zn level as [CO
2
]
increases. Potentially, high throughput screening [
56
] could provide insight into genetic
traits associated with nutritional maintenance in response to rising [CO2]; however, at
present, the use of such technologies to ascertain intra-specific nutritional variation
among multiple crop lines has not been attempted. However, such information would
also be invaluable for genetic transformation and GMO development for lines that
would maintain or increase elemental concentration as [CO
2
] increases. Biofortification
efforts can also be supplemented with other agronomic techniques, especially soil man-
agement, e.g., the addition of Zn fertilizer in rice fields. While these are laudable goals,
it should also be recognized that for agronomic production in wealthy countries, mech-
anization and uniformity are preferred, whereas nutritional or qualitative variation is,
in general, ignored.
There is also a potential benefit from genetic and agronomic management. Increased
consumer awareness and selection of nutritional vegetables and fruit from producers who
employ practices or genetics that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is one incentive
for diet diversity. Such an incentive would serve as “double-duty” in reducing agricultural
contributions to anthropogenic warming. Policy incentives could also encourage producers
to grow more diverse foods, or food companies to create more nutritionally- enhanced
products while limiting GHGs [33].
While the emphasis on human food sources is understandable, research to ascertain
and document the extent of [CO
2
]-induced changes in the nutritional integrity of global
food webs is critical. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that these changes could affect all
animal systems globally. Experimental data with notable exception [
44
] is lacking; yet, there
are resources, such as herbariums, that could provide estimates of recent temporal increases
in atmospheric [CO
2
] (+34% since 1950) relative to protein or micronutrient concentrations
for a wide range of wild plant species [42].
There is, given the complexity of plant physiological responses, a need to improve
current models of nutritional integrity and nutritional flow in order to elucidate the magni-
tude and direction of ongoing increases in [CO
2
], both in isolation and also as an integral
response to climatic change. However, with important exceptions [
57
], such models are
rare. Mechanistic, process-based models are needed for quantifying complete nutrient
dynamics and stoichiometry, especially regarding human nutrition [
35
]. Transdisciplinary
research, including collaboration and cooperation between ecologists, plant physiologists,
dieticians, producers and economists is necessary in that regard. In addition, there is a
need to include a wider array of specialists, including sociologists, public health experts
and policy makers.
Plants 2022,11, 1000 8 of 11
8. Final Thoughts
Popular images of climate change include starving polar bears, rising sea levels
and super-charged hurricanes. All are instances of justified concerns regarding anthro-
pogenic climate change. However, other impacts, as exemplified here by the extensive
evidence indicating a wide-spread decline in nutritional concentration of numerous plant
species with rising [CO
2
], will also have profound and wide-ranging effects on numerous
aspects of global biology, not least of which is human nutrition. These effects are not
trivial. Weyant et al. [
58
] estimated that CO
2
-induced reductions in micronutrients such
as zinc and iron in crops could result in an additional 125.8 million disability-adjusted
life years (DALYs) globally, with South-East Asian and sub-Saharan African countries
most affected. Zhu et al. [
50
] estimated 600 million people at risk past mid-century are
in the highest rice-consuming countries in Asia with the lowest overall gross domestic
product per capita. Beach et al. [
32
] projected a 2.4% to 4.3% penalty on expected gains
in global availability of protein, iron and zinc by mid-century because of technology
change, market responses and the fertilization effects of [CO
2
] on yield. It is clear that
understanding these effects is fundamental and crucial to estimate the consequences not
only for public health, but also for the transfer and adequate functioning of the global
food web.
It is puzzling and perplexing that in looking at available resources to both broaden
the scope of our understanding and assess the global outcomes of [CO
2
] and nutrition,
there is a profound lack of academic support and funding. No programs regarding [CO
2
]
and human nutrition currently exist at the National Institute of Health (NIH) and no RFAs
at the National Science Foundation (NSF) exist to examine the role of [CO
2
] on nutrition
as part of the global food web; yet, these are agencies that, ostensibly, are designed to
address significant scientific issues, in the public’s interest. As Howard Frumkin wrote
in Scientific American [
59
], at present the total research funding on climate change for all
health consequences is approximately nine million dollars, or 0.02% of the NIH’s 40-billion-
dollar budget.
We can and we must do better, not only in terms of [CO
2
], plant and nutritional
consequences, but in our ability to address the problem of anthropogenic climate
change. If there is an unseen benefit to the current pandemic, ignoring public health
consequences that can affect millions of lives is no longer an option. The evidence is
here. Action is needed.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable as a review paper.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable as a review paper.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available from the original sources as listed in References.
Acknowledgments:
The author thanks J.A. Bunce for his encouragement and suggestions to
the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Ziska, L.H.; Blumenthal, D.M.; Franks, S.J. Understanding the nexus of rising CO
2
, climate change, and evolution in weed biology.
Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2019,12, 79–88. [CrossRef]
2.
Mohan, J.E.; Ziska, L.H.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Thomas, R.B.; Sicher, R.C.; George, K.; Clark, J.S. Biomass and toxicity responses of
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) to elevated atmospheric CO
2
.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2006
,103, 9086–9089. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3.
Sionit, N. Response of Soybean to Two Levels of Mineral Nutrition in CO
2
-Enriched Atmosphere. Crop Sci.
1983
,25, 329–333.
[CrossRef]
4.
Sionit, N.; Mortensen, D.A.; Strain, B.R.; Hellmers, H. Growth Response of Wheat to CO
2
Enrichment and Different Levels of
Mineral Nutrition. Agron. J. 1981,75, 1023–1027. [CrossRef]
Plants 2022,11, 1000 9 of 11
5.
Cotrufo, M.F.; Ineson, P.; Scott, A. Elevated CO
2
reduces the nitrogen concentration of plant tissues. Glob. Chang. Biol.
1998
,4,
43–54. [CrossRef]
6.
Taub, D.R.; Miller, B.; Allen, H. Effects of elevated CO
2
on the protein concentration of food crops: A meta-analysis.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2008,14, 565–575. [CrossRef]
7.
Loladze, I. Hidden shift of the ionome of plants exposed to elevated CO
2
depletes minerals at the base of human nutrition. eLife
2014,3, e02245. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Myers, S.S.; Zanobetti, A.; Kloog, I.; Huybers, P.; Leakey, A.D.; Bloom, A.J.; Carlisle, E.; Dietterich, L.H.; Fitzgerald, G.;
Hasegawa, T.; et al. Increasing CO2threatens human nutrition. Nature 2014,510, 139–142. [CrossRef]
9.
Dong, J.; Gruda, N.; Lam, S.K.; Li, X.; Duan, Z. Effects of elevated CO
2
on nutritional quality of vegetables: A review.
Front. Plant Sci. 2018,9, 924–928. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Chumley, H.; Hewlings, S. The effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO
2
] on micronutrient concentration, specifically
iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) in rice; a systematic review. J. Plant Nutr. 2020,43, 1571–1578. [CrossRef]
11. Jarrell, W.M.; Beverly, R.B. The dilution effect in plant nutrition studies. Adv. Agron. 1981,34, 197–224.
12.
Davis, D.R.; Epp, M.D.; Riordan, H.D. Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999. J. Am.
Coll. Nutr. 2004,23, 669–682. [CrossRef]
13.
Ziska, L.H.; Morris, C.F.; Goins, E.W. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of selected wheat varieties released since 1903 to
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide: Can yield sensitivity to carbon dioxide be a factor in wheat performance?
Glob. Chang. Biol.
2004,10, 1810–1819. [CrossRef]
14.
Pleijel, H.; Broberg, M.C.; Högy, P.; Uddling, J. Nitrogen application is required to realize wheat yield stimulation by elevated
CO
2
but will not remove the CO
2
-induced reduction in grain protein concentration. Glob. Chang. Biol.
2019
,25, 1868–1876.
[CrossRef]
15.
Uddling, J.; Broberg, M.C.; Feng, Z.; Pleijel, H. Crop quality under rising atmospheric CO
2
.Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.
2018
,45,
262–267. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Pérez, P.; Morcuende, R.; del Molino, I.M.; Martínez-Carrasco, R. Diurnal changes of Rubisco in response to elevated
CO
2
, temperature and nitrogen in wheat grown under temperature gradient tunnels. Environ. Exp. Bot.
2005
,53, 13–27.
[CrossRef]
17. Vu, J.C.V.; Allen, L.H., Jr.; Boote, K.J.; Bowes, G. Effects of elevated CO2and temperature on photosynthesis and Rubisco in rice
and soybean. Plant Cell Environ. 1997,20, 68–76. [CrossRef]
18.
Bloom, A.J.; Burger, M.; Asensio, J.S.R.; Cousins, A.B. Carbon dioxide enrichment inhibits nitrate assimilation in wheat and
Arabidopsis. Science 2010,328, 899–903. [CrossRef]
19.
Broadbent, F.E.; Hill, G.N.; Tyler, K.B. Transformations and movement of urea in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
1958
,22, 303–307.
[CrossRef]
20.
Luo, Y.; Su, B.O.; Currie, W.S.; Dukes, J.S.; Finzi, A.; Hartwig, U.; Hungate, B.; McMurtrie, R.E.; Oren, R.A.M.;
Parton, W.J.; et al.
Progressive nitrogen limitation of ecosystem responses to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. Bioscience
2004
,54, 731–739.
[CrossRef]
21.
McGrath, J.M.; Lobell, D.B. Reduction of transpiration and altered nutrient allocation contribute to nutrient decline of crops
grown in elevated CO2concentrations. Plant Cell Environ. 2013,36, 697–705. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Köhler, I.H.; Huber, S.C.; Bernacchi, C.J.; Baxter, I.R. Increased temperatures may safeguard the nutritional quality of crops under
future elevated CO2concentrations. Plant J. 2019,97, 872–886. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23.
Wang, J.; Hasegawa, T.; Li, L.; Lam, S.K.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Pan, G. Changes in grain protein and amino acids composition of
wheat and rice under short-term increased [CO
2
] and temperature of canopy air in a paddy from East China. New Phytol.
2019
,
222, 726–734. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Wei, L.; Wang, W.; Zhu, J.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J.; Li, C.; Zeng, Q.; Ziska, L.H. Responses of rice qualitative characteristics to elevated
carbon dioxide and higher temperature: Implications for global nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric.
2021
,101, 3854–3861. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25.
Ziska, L.H.; Namuco, O.; Moya, T.; Quilang, J. Growth and yield response of field-grown tropical rice to increasing carbon dioxide
and air temperature. Agron. J. 1997,89, 45–53. [CrossRef]
26.
Augustine, D.J.; Blumenthal, D.M.; Springer, T.L.; LeCain, D.R.; Gunter, S.A.; Derner, J.D. Elevated CO
2
induces substantial and
persistent declines in forage quality irrespective of warming in mixedgrass prairie. Ecol. Appl.
2018
,28, 721–735. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
27.
Barbehenn, R.V.; Chen, Z.; Karowe, D.N.; Spickard, A. C
3
grasses have higher nutritional quality than C
4
grasses under ambient
and elevated atmospheric CO2.Glob. Chang. Biol. 2004,10, 1565–1575. [CrossRef]
28.
Insider. Corn. Available online: https://www.businessinsider.com/10-crops-that-feed-the-world-2011-9#1-corn-10 (accessed on
23 March 2022).
29.
Haddad, L.J.; Hawkes, C.; Achadi, E.; Ahuja, A.; Ag Bendech, M.; Bhatia, K.; Bhutta, Z.; Blossner, M.; Borghi, E.; Eriksen, K.; et al.
Global Nutrition Report 2015: Actions and Accountability to Advance Nutrition and Sustainable Development; International Food Policy
Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
30.
Smith, M.R.; Golden, C.D.; Myers, S.S. Potential rise in iron deficiency due to future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
GeoHealth 2017,1, 248–257. [CrossRef]
Plants 2022,11, 1000 10 of 11
31. Smith, M.R.; Myers, S.S. Impact of anthropogenic CO2emissions on global human nutrition. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018,8, 834–839.
[CrossRef]
32.
Beach, R.H.; Sulser, T.B.; Crimmins, A.; Cenacchi, N.; Cole, J.; Fukagawa, N.K.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Myers, S.; Sarofim, M.C.;
Smith, M.; et al.
Combining the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on protein, iron, and zinc availability and
projected climate change on global diets: A modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 2019,3, e307–e317. [CrossRef]
33.
Fanzo, J.; Davis, C.; McLaren, R.; Choufani, J. The effect of climate change across food systems: Implications for nutrition
outcomes. Glob. Food Secur. 2018,18, 12–19. [CrossRef]
34.
Ebi, K.L.; Loladze, I. Elevated atmospheric CO
2
concentrations and climate change will affect our food’s quality and quantity.
Lancet Planet. Health 2019,3, e283–e284. [CrossRef]
35.
Ebi, K.L.; Anderson, C.L.; Hess, J.J.; Kim, S.H.; Loladze, I.; Neumann, R.B.; Singh, D.; Ziska, L.; Wood, R. Nutritional quality
of crops in a high CO
2
world: An agenda for research and technology development. Environ. Res. Lett.
2021
,16, 064045.
[CrossRef]
36.
Black, R.E.; Victora, C.G.; Walker, S.P.; Bhutta, Z.A.; Christian, P.; De Onis, M.; Ezzati, M.; Grantham-McGregor, S.; Katz, J.;
Martorell, R.; et al. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet
2013
,
382, 427–451. [CrossRef]
37.
Wang, H.; Liddell, C.A.; Coates, M.M.; Mooney, M.D.; Levitz, C.E.; Schumacher, A.E.; Apfel, H.; Lannarone, M.; Phillips, B.;
Lofgren, K.T.; et al. Global, regional, and national levels of neonatal, infant, and under-5 mortality during 1990–2013: A systematic
analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2014,384, 957–979. [CrossRef]
38. Prescott-Allen, R.; Prescott-Allen, C. How many plants feed the world? Conserv. Biol. 1990,4, 365–374. [CrossRef]
39.
Cotrufo, M.F.; Ineson, P. Elevated CO
2
reduces field decomposition rates of Betula pendula (Roth.) leaf litter. Oecologia
1996
,106,
525–530. [CrossRef]
40.
Galloway, J.N.; Townsend, A.R.; Erisman, J.W.; Bekunda, M.; Cai, Z.C.; Freney, J.R.; Martinelli, L.A.; Seitzinger, S.P.;
Sutton, M.A.
Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science
2008
,320,
889–892. [CrossRef]
41.
McLauchlan, K.K.; Ferguson, C.J.; Wilson, I.E.; Ocheltree, T.W.; Craine, J.M. Thirteen decades of foliar isotopes indicate declining
nitrogen availability in central North American grasslands. New Phytol. 2010,187, 1135–1145. [CrossRef]
42.
Ziska, L.H.; Pettis, J.S.; Edwards, J.; Hancock, J.E.; Tomecek, M.B.; Clark, A.; Dukes, J.S.; Loladze, I.; Polley, H.W. Rising
atmospheric CO
2
is reducing the protein concentration of a floral pollen source essential for North American bees. Proc. R. Soc. B
Biol. Sci. 2016,283, 20160414. [CrossRef]
43.
Bronstein, J.L.; Alarcón, R.; Geber, M. The evolution of plant–insect mutualisms. New Phytol.
2006
,172, 412–428. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
44.
Welti, E.A.; Roeder, K.A.; de Beurs, K.M.; Joern, A.; Kaspari, M. Nutrient dilution and climate cycles underlie declines in a
dominant insect herbivore. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020,117, 7271–7275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Loladze, I. Rising atmospheric CO
2
and human nutrition: Toward globally imbalanced plant stoichiometry? Trends Ecol. Evol.
2002,17, 457–461. [CrossRef]
46.
Navas-Acien, A.; Nachman, K.E. Public health responses to arsenic in rice and other foods. JAMA Intern. Med.
2013
,173,
1395–1396. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Fernandez, V.; Barnaby, J.Y.; Tomecek, M.; Codling, E.E.; Ziska, L.H. Elevated CO
2
may reduce arsenic accumulation in diverse
ecotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Plant Nutr. 2018,41, 645–653. [CrossRef]
48. Goulson, D. The insect apocalypse and why it matters. Curr. Biol. 2019,29, R967–R971. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49.
Loladze, I.; Nolan, J.M.; Ziska, L.H.; Knobbe, A.R. Rising atmospheric CO
2
lowers concentrations of plant carotenoids essential to
human health: A meta-analysis. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2019,63, 1801047. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Zhu, C.; Kobayashi, K.; Loladze, I.; Zhu, J.; Jiang, Q.; Xu, X.; Liu, G.; Seneweera, S.; Ebi, K.L.; Drewnowski, A.; et al. Carbon
dioxide (CO
2
) levels this century will alter the protein, micronutrients, and vitamin content of rice grains with potential health
consequences for the poorest rice-dependent countries. Sci. Adv. 2018,4, eaaq1012. [CrossRef]
51.
Ziska, L.H.; Emche, S.D.; Johnson, E.L.; George, K.; Reed, D.R.; Sicher, R.C. Alterations in the production and concentration of
selected alkaloids as a function of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and air temperature: Implications for ethno-pharmacology.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005,11, 1798–1807. [CrossRef]
52.
Ziska, L.H.; Panicker, S.; Wojno, H.L. Recent and projected increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and the potential impacts on
growth and alkaloid production in wild poppy (Papaver setigerum DC.). Clim. Chang. 2008,91, 395–403. [CrossRef]
53.
Zavala, J.A.; Casteel, C.L.; DeLucia, E.H.; Berenbaum, M.R. Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense
against invasive insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008,105, 5129–5133. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54.
Vega, F.E.; Ziska, L.H.; Simpkins, A.; Infante, F.; Davis, A.P.; Rivera, J.A.; Barnaby, J.Y.; Wolf, J. Early growth phase and caffeine
content response to recent and projected increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide in coffee (Coffea arabica and C. canephora).
Sci. Rep. 2020,10, 5875. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55.
Nakandalage, N.; Nicolas, M.; Norton, R.M.; Hirotsu, N.; Milham, P.J.; Seneweera, S. Improving rice zinc biofortification success
rates through genetic and crop management approaches in a changing environment. Front. Plant Sci.
2016
,7, 764. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Plants 2022,11, 1000 11 of 11
56.
Rasheed, A.; Xia, X. From markers to genome-based breeding in wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet.
2019
,132, 767–784. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
57.
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.; et al.
Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein. Glob. Chang. Biol.
2019
,25, 155–173. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
58.
Weyant, C.; Brandeau, M.L.; Burke, M.; Lobell, D.B.; Bendavid, E.; Basu, S. Anticipated burden and mitigation of carbon-dioxide-
induced nutritional deficiencies and related diseases: A simulation modeling study. PLoS Med.
2018
,15, e1002586. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
59.
Frumkin, H.; Jackson, R.J. We Need a National Institute of Climate Change and Health. 2020. Available online: https://www.
scientificamerican.com/article/we-need-a-national-institute-of-climate- change-and-health/ (accessed on 23 March 2022).