Natural genetic variation underlying the negative effect of elevated CO₂ on ionome composition in Arabidopsis thaliana

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The study's abstract, introduction, and conclusions are not supported by the methods and results conducted. In fact, the results presented suggest that Arabidopsis could easily adapt to an extremely high CO2 environment.

This study offers good evidence pointing to a genetic basis for Arabidopsis thaliana's response to elevated CO2 (eCO2) levels and its subsequent impact on the leaf ionome. The natural variation analyses in the study support the hypothesis that genetic factors, rather than local adaptation, guide the influence of eCO2 on the ionome of rosette leaves in Arabidopsis. However, the manuscript's claim regarding its role in "the development of biofortified crops adapted to a high-CO2 world" (line 23) is overstated, especially given the absence of any analysis on the influence of eCO2 on the seed ionome and Arabidopsis is a poor model for harvest index for any crop. The manuscript, in its current form, necessitates massive revisions, particularly in clarifying its broader implications and in providing more substantial evidence for some of its assertions.

Major Drawbacks and Questions:

1. Evidence for the Central Premise:
The foundational premise of the study is the assertion that rising atmospheric CO2 levels result in a decline in plant mineral content. This phenomenon is primarily observed in C3 plants, with C4 plants seemingly less affected. The evidence provided on this topic is scant and, in some instances, contradicts the authors' own references. The potential reduction of certain minerals, especially in grains, can be debated. For instance, reduced nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) content in grains might not necessarily be detrimental for human and animal consumption. In fact, it could potentially mitigate issues like nitrogen emissions and phosphorus leaching. Labeling this as a "major threat to food security" (line 30) is exaggerated. While the case for microelements might be more compelling, the introduction fails to articulate this adequately. Furthermore, the introduction lacks any discussion on how eCO2 might influence nutrient allocation to grains, which would be crucial in substantiating the claim that eCO2 poses a threat to food security. A more comprehensive introduction that clearly delineates the adverse effects of eCO2 and its implications for food security would greatly enhance the manuscript.

2. Exaggerated Concerns:
The paper begins with the concern that carbon fertilization will lead to carbon dilution in our foods. While we indeed face numerous genuine threats in the coming decades, this particular issue is manageable. The increase in CO2 alone offers many opportunities for boosting yield. However, the heightened heat and increased evapotranspiration will pose massive challenges in many environments.

Figure 4 in fact suggests that 43% of the REGMAP panel (cluster 3) is already pre-adapted to very high CO2 levels. This suggests annual species could adapt very rapidly.

3. Assumptions on CO2 Levels:
The assumption of 900ppm seems to be based on a very extreme climate change scenario. Most people believe we will overshoot the 1.5{degree sign}C scenario, however, it seems plausible that 2.5 to 3{degree sign}C scenarios are more likely. This would correspond to around 500ppm of CO2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01196-7/tables/4

4. Focus on Real Challenges:
We have numerous real challenges, such as extreme heat and inconsistent rainfall, to address in the context of climate change. However, testing under extreme CO2 conditions and then asserting that carbon dilution will negatively impact nutrition is exaggerated.

In contrast, the FACE experiments are fundamental and are conducted at more realistic eCO2 levels. Understanding the interaction between a 20% increase in CO2 and new precipitation patterns is key for global carbon flux prediction.

As I look at the literature on commercial greenhouse tomato production, 1000ppm of eCO2 is common, but it also looks like the breeders and growers have already solved for flavor and nutrition under these conditions.

Conclusion:
While the study provides valuable insights into the genetic underpinnings of Arabidopsis thaliana's response to elevated CO2 levels, it requires an entirely revised writeup, especially in its abstract, broader claims and implications. The manuscript would benefit from a more thorough introduction, a clearer definition of its scope, and a clear focus on the limits of this study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Strengths:
The authors have conducted a large, well-designed experiment to test the response to eCO2. Overall, the experimental design is sound and appropriate for the questions about how a change in CO2 affects the ionome of Arabidopsis. Most of the conclusions in this area are well supported by the data that the authors present.

Weakness:
While the authors have done good experiments, it is a big stretch from Arabidopsis grown in an arbitrary concentration of CO2 to relevance to human and animal nutrition in future climates. Arabidopsis is a great model plant, but its leaves are not generally eaten by humans or animals.

The authors don't justify their choice of a CO2 concentration. Given the importance of the parameter for the experiment, the rationale for selecting 900 ppm as elevated CO2 compared to any other concentration should be addressed. And CO2 is just one of the variables that plants will have to contend with in future climates, other variables will also affect elemental concentrations.

Given these concerns, I think the emphasis on biofortification for future climates is unwarranted for this study.

Additionally, I have trouble with these conclusions:

-Abstract "Finally, we demonstrate that manipulating the function of one of these genes can mitigate the negative effect of elevated CO2 on the plant mineral composition. "
-Discussion "Consistent with these results, we show that manipulating TIP2;2 expressions with a knock-out mutant can modulate the Zn loss observed under high CO2."

The authors have not included the data to support this conclusion as stated. They have shown that this mutant increases the Zn content of the leaves when compared to WT but have not demonstrated that this response is different than in ambient CO2. This is an important distinction: one way to ameliorate the reduction of nutrients due to eCO2 is to try to identify genes that are involved in the mechanism of eCO2-induced reduction. Another way is to increase the concentration of nutrients so that the eCO2-induced reduction is not as important (i.e. a 10% reduction in Zn due to eCO2 is not as important if you have increased the baseline Zn concentration by 20%). The authors identified tip2 as a target from the GWAS on difference, but their validation experiment only looks at eCO2.