3 ms·

Given that tobacco is also a C3 plant your link to the post about improving tobacco photosynthesis by reducing the cost of photorespiration is exactly the mecha

Given that tobacco is also a C3 plant your link to the post about improving tobacco photosynthesis by reducing the cost of photorespiration is exactly the mechanism I expect to be exploited by any scientist/company seeking to improve C3 photosynthesis. This work is based around is tobacco because it is an excellent model crop for transformation and in situ agricultural studies. Not because this lab is explicitly seeking to improve tobacco. This work is probably the most impressive improvements made to the science of practically improving photosynthesis. It was published by one of the best labs in the best department for the study of photosynthesis in the world. * http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/eaat9077 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/eaat9077 * Ort lab http://www.life.illinois.edu/ort/OrtCV.html http://www.life.illinois.edu/ort/OrtCV.html * Ripe Study https://ripe.illinois.edu/ https://ripe.illinois.edu/

vanderZwan 8y ago
I apologize for being too negative about the tobacco, you are absolutely right. The paper concludes that it is hopeful for improving grain crop yields: > We are optimistic that similar gains may be achieved and translated into increased yield in C3 grain crops because photorespiration is common to all C3 plants and higher photosynthetic rates under elevated CO2, which suppresses photorespiration and increases harvestable yield in C3 crops. However, does not refute the other papers I have linked about C3/C4/CAM photosynthesis that suggest that C4 may not be universally beneficial, but an optimization in certain contexts only. I do hope enhancements to plants in agroforestry settings, or restorative agricultural practices in general, are also possible. Those are badly needed if we want to regenerate topsoil and perhaps even make food production a net carbon-sink.

vanderZwan 8y ago

I apologize for being too negative about the tobacco, you are absolutely right. The paper concludes that it is hopeful for improving grain crop yields: > We are optimistic that similar gains may be achieved and translated into increased yield in C3 grain crops because photorespiration is common to all C3 plants and higher photosynthetic rates under elevated CO2, which suppresses photorespiration and increases harvestable yield in C3 crops. However, does not refute the other papers I have linked about C3/C4/CAM photosynthesis that suggest that C4 may not be universally beneficial, but an optimization in certain contexts only. I do hope enhancements to plants in agroforestry settings, or restorative agricultural practices in general, are also possible. Those are badly needed if we want to regenerate topsoil and perhaps even make food production a net carbon-sink.