# Preparing for an uncertain future: molecular responses of plants facing climate change

Isabel Bäurle, Laurent Laplaze, Antoine Martin

► To cite this version:

Isabel Bäurle, Laurent Laplaze, Antoine Martin. Preparing for an uncertain future: molecular responses of plants facing climate change. Journal of Experimental Botany, In press, 74 (5), pp.1297-1302. 10.1093/jxb/erac493/6902002. http://hal-03934837

HAL Id: hal-03934837

https://hal.science/hal-03934837

Submitted on 11 Jan 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Preparing for an uncertain future: molecular responses of plants facing climate change

Isabel Bäurle<fnref n="1" />, Laurent Laplaze<fnref n="2" /> and Antoine Martin<fnref n="3" />

Corresponding Isabel Bäurle, Laurent Laplaze and Antoine Martin

isabel.baeurle@uni-potsdam.de

laurent.laplaze@ird.fr

antoine.martin@cnrs.fr

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

<footnote n="1">¹ Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² DIADE, Univ Montpellier, IRD, CIRAD, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ IPSIM, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France</footnote>
**Keywords**

Adaptation, Climate change, Drought, Elevated CO2, Heat stress, Mitigation, Resilience

Accepted Manuscript
## Introductory paragraph

Climate change is mostly driven by the elevation of atmospheric CO₂ concentration. It leads to the increase in ambient temperature and temperature extremes, as well as to the reduction in water availability. Despite the apparent benefit that an elevation of CO₂ and ambient temperature might have on the production of plant biomass, climate change severely challenges the plant life cycle, and thus increasingly leads to food insecurity. Investigating the molecular mechanisms of plant adaptation to climate change is thus a pressing issue. This was the theme of the EMBO Workshop “Molecular responses of plants facing climate change” in June 2022 in Montpellier, France. Here, we summarise some key insights presented during the conference on the investigation of molecular mechanisms of plant adaptation to environmental constraints in a changing climate.

## How to deal with increasing temperatures?

Ambient temperatures affect all aspects of growth and development. Morphological responses to mildly elevated temperatures include the regulation of elongation growth in the shoot and the root (Quint et al., 2016). In the shoot, several thermosensors including Phytochrome B perceive temperature and coordinate with PHYTOCHROME-INTERACTING FACTOR 4 (PIF4) (Delker et al., 2022; Perrella et al., 2022). PIF4 then integrates with the auxin and brassinosteroid signalling pathways for a coherent growth response. Carolin Delker (University of Halle) discussed how shoot and root responses involve distinct sensing and signalling mechanisms. In nature, however, not only temperatures vary, but also light quality (shading) and water availability. Jorge Casal (University of Buenos Aires) highlighted the integration of different environmental cues at the level of photoreceptors and downstream signalling pathways to appropriately gauge complex environments (Casal and Balasubramanian, 2019; Romero-Montepaone et al., 2020).

The heat stress (HS) response allows plants to acclimate to extreme temperatures through the activation of HEAT SHOCK TRANSCRIPTION FACTORs (HSFs) transcription factors
that induce the expression of chaperones (Heat Shock Proteins, HSPs) and enzymes that
produce thermoprotective and ROS-scavenging metabolites (Guihur et al., 2022; Ohama et
al., 2017). The current view is that HEAT SHOCK TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR A1 (HSFA1)
isoforms are maintained in an inactive state in the cytoplasm through complexation with
chaperones and rapidly move into the nucleus after HS to activate transcription, when the
HSPs are recruited away to misfolded proteins (Ohama et al., 2017). Phil Wigge (IGZ
Großbeeren) presented data that suggest an alternative mode of regulation of at least one
HSFA1 isoform by liquid-liquid-phase separation. Intrinsically disordered domains within
HSFA1 trigger phase separation at elevated temperatures, similar to what has been
described for EARLY FLOWERING 3 (ELF3) (Jung et al., 2020). Thus, HSFA1 may directly
sense temperature. Temperature-dependent alternative splicing may constitute a parallel
mechanism. Sotirios Fragkostefanakis (University of Frankfurt) reported on general splicing
regulators with a specific role in HS-dependent alternative splicing, thus illustrating a
feedback loop to fine-tune HS response (Hu et al., 2020; Rosenkranz et al., 2022).

A moderate HS event can prime a plant and lead to a more efficient response upon recurrent
stress after a stress-free interval lasting several days. This so-called HS memory shows
complex regulation, including epigenetic modifications, protein stability and stable
metabolites (Balazadeh, 2022; Oberkofler et al., 2021). Isabel Bäurle (University of Potsdam)
discussed epigenetic changes involving hyper-methylation of histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4) and
showed how locus-specific epigenetic editing of H3K4me3 impairs the memory (Oberkofler
and Baurle, 2022; Oberkofler et al., 2021). Specialized HSF complexes govern these
epigenetic modifications (Friedrich et al., 2021). In contrast, the autophagy cellular
degradation machinery negatively impacts HS memory by degrading HSPs and other
thermoprotective proteins, as Salma Balazadeh (University of Leiden) discussed (Balazadeh,
2022; Thirumalaikumar et al., 2021). In a parallel pathway the metalloprotease FtsH6
degrades HSP21, thus modulating HS memory (Sedaghatmehr et al., 2016). Improving HS
memory provides an interesting avenue to increase tolerance to HS without affecting growth
in stress-free conditions. Improvement of HS tolerance may also stem from clever
manipulation of the soil microbiome. Heribert Hirt (Kiing Abdullah University of Science and Technology) presented data showing that desert root endophytes induce thermotolerance by boosting HS memory (Shekhawat et al., 2021).

## How to deal with water stress?

Root traits can be targeted to improve water capture in crops (Lynch, 2022) and tolerance to water stress based on a good characterization of the stress pattern and soil characteristics of the target area. Several mechanisms that optimise root development in response to changing soil water content (in time and space) are prime candidates. Xerobranching, the local inhibition of root branching when the root tip loses contact with wet soil (as in air gaps or dry soil regions), is an abscisic acid (ABA)-dependent adaptive process described in cereals and Arabidopsis (Orman-Ligeza et al., 2018). Malcolm Bennett (University of Nottingham) described how a xerobranching water stress stimulus on a root tip leads to release of ABA from the phloem that induces plasmodesmata closure in root outer tissues, which prevents the movement of auxin from the epidermis to the pericycle required for lateral root formation (Mehra et al., 2022). This model explains how hydraulics controls root architecture via co-transport of phytohormones. Hydropatterning is another mechanism that regulates the radial positioning of lateral roots, root hairs, or aerenchyma depending on differences in water availability across the circumferential axis of the root to optimise root architecture to local water content (Bao et al., 2014). This adaptive response is ABA-independent but dependent on sumoylation of AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR 7 (ARF7), a key regulator of auxin response during lateral root formation (Orosa-Puente et al., 2018). José Dinneny (Stanford University) reported that maize varieties are highly diverse for hydropatterning and that hydropatterning was a good predictor of root system depth, a trait associated with better water stress tolerance.

Integrating root architecture and anatomical and physiological properties of tissues is important to understand water dynamics in the root system (Maurel and Nacry, 2020).
Christophe Maurel (Institute for Plant Sciences of Montpellier) showed that different maize root types have different hydraulic properties and response to water stress exploiting HydroRoot, a model for root hydraulics (Boursiac et al., 2022), and split root experiments. He further reported genetic diversity in maize for root hydraulics. How root hydraulics relates to plant response to water stress still needs to be evaluated. Optimising water acquisition by roots will increase water depletion in the soil and will ultimately have limited impact when available soil water is limited. Another complementary strategy is to improve water use efficiency, i.e., the amount of carbon fixed per unit water consumed. Transpiration is regulated by stomata opening, a process that appeared in the earliest land plants (Clark et al., 2022). Optimising stomatal movement in response to environmental signals could improve plant water use efficiency and drought tolerance. Regulation of stomatal closure by ABA and CO2 is mediated by a complex signalling pathway involving several kinases (MPKs, OST1, HT1) and the GHR1 receptor-like pseudokinase that was described by Hannes Kollist (University of Tartu) (Horak et al., 2016; Sierla et al., 2018). Stomata integrate environmental signals to optimise gas exchange and water loss. These signalling pathways ultimately lead to the coordinated regulation of different ion transporters localised at the plasma or vacuolar membrane of guard cells (Cubero-Font and De Angeli, 2021) as well as aquaporins of the PLASMA MEMBRANE INTRINSIC PROTEIN (PIP) subfamily (Ding et al., 2022). The ability of the plant to restrict its transpiration when the evaporative demand is very high, and therefore when the water cost of carbon fixation is elevated is a key trait for water use efficiency (Burridge et al., 2022). Pablo Affortit (IRD) presented data showing a link between transpiration efficiency and transpiration restriction under high vapor pressure deficit on the one hand and plant hydraulics and root traits (in particular the root/shoot ratio) on the other hand in African rice (Affortit et al., 2022) thus linking transpiration regulation to root water uptake. Interestingly, during drought stress, the photosynthetic apparatus is protected by a feedback control by photorespiration (Leverne and Krieger-Liszkay, 2021) and Anja Krieger-Liszkay presented evidence that signals deriving from the plastoquinone pool could regulate root growth. Altogether, this suggests mechanisms that integrate water stress perception in
the photosynthetic tissues with root development and water uptake. Further work is needed
to decipher the regulation of transpiration by plant hydraulics and photosynthesis.

The elevation of CO₂ in the atmosphere: benefits, costs and opportunities

Elevated CO₂ concentration (eCO₂) promotes the production of biomass, as the current CO₂
concentration is a limiting factor for photosynthesis of C3 plants (Ainsworth and Long, 2021).
As mentioned by Christine Foyer (University of Birmingham), this is a favourable
circumstance in a world showing a growing population. However, this CO₂ fertilisation effect
is less than expected due to the acclimation of photosynthesis to eCO₂. Boosting
photosynthesis of C3 plants, and understanding the mechanisms behind eCO₂ acclimation in
a CO₂-enriched world is therefore a main objective for plant scientists (Simkin et al., 2019).
Different routes to improve photosynthesis were discussed during this workshop. One
example was presented by Alejandro Perdomo (Lancaster University), who showed that the
transcriptional regulation of Rubisco activase can be a way to improve Rubisco efficiency,
and thus to increase carbon fixation and yield (Perdomo et al., 2017). Florian Busch
(University of Birmingham) discussed the different limitations of CO₂ assimilation, and
highlighted that the most relevant targets for improving photosynthesis vary depending on
the environment. Together with Arnold Bloom (UC Davis), they stressed the importance of
photorespiration, and challenged the view that this metabolic pathway would be a cost for
plants compared to the improvement of photosynthesis (Busch et al., 2018; Shi and Bloom,
2021).

However, the increase in carbon uptake and biomass production will not occur independently
of other major metabolic pathways. This seems especially true considering that
photosynthesis might not be the main limiting parameter for growth and yield, in opposition to
nutrient and especially to nitrogen limitation (Sinclair et al., 2019). This is reminiscent of an
unexpected negative effect of eCO₂ on plants. Indeed, the growth under eCO₂ leads to a
decline in the mineral composition of C3 plants, which might create a serious threat for food
and nutritional security at the end of this century (Gojon *et al.*, 2022). Different approaches to identify the genetic and molecular mechanisms behind the negative effect of eCO₂ on plant nutrient content have been presented. The use of natural genetic variation or the inference of gene networks under simulated future climate notably led to the identification of genes involved in the response of plants to eCO₂ (Cassan, Martin *et al.*, unpublished). Arnold Bloom presented data showing yield and protein content of several wheat lines over 35 years of cultivation in California. During this period CO₂ increased in the atmosphere, while yield decreased but not protein content, suggesting that plants sacrificed yield to maintain organic N (Bloom and Plant, 2021). This also suggests that fast adaptive mechanisms to the changing atmosphere might happen, and remain to be identified.

Plants are also an extraordinary sink of carbon. The increase of CO₂ in the atmosphere may lead to an augmentation in plant biomass, making plants a natural trap for atmospheric CO₂ (Lynch, 2022) (Box 2). This was the subject of the keynote given by Joanne Chory (The Salk Institute), who presented data showing how root systems can be improved to capture and store carbon stably in the ground, contributing to the mitigation of climate change.

## Overall conclusion

The complex nature of a changing climate requires plants to be systemically more efficient in dealing with the constraints that have been discussed here individually. A more integrated view and approach is required, as a plant that is more efficient in dealing with temperature extremes may at the same time be more vulnerable at elevated ambient temperature, drought stress or CO₂-rich environment. This complexity calls for multi-partner initiatives that have the expertise and the means to tackle systemic aspects, ideally not in model plants, but directly in crop species.
**Acknowledgements**

We apologise to colleagues whose work could not be described due to space limitations.

**Conflict of interest**

No conflict of interest declared

**Funding**

Work on adaptation to climate change in LL's lab is supported by the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR Grant PlastiMil ANR20-CE 20-0016, ICARUS ANR17-MPGA-0011 and RootAdapt ANR17-CE20-0022-01) and the Sorghum and Millet Innovation Lab (SMIL) and Innovation Lab for Crop Improvement (ILCI) through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Feed the Future programme. Work in AM's lab is supported by I-Site MUSE (project ECO₂TREATS), the CNRS through the MITI interdisciplinary 80|PRIME program and the BAP department of INRAE.
## References

Affortit P, Effa-Effa B, Ndoye MS, Moukouanga D, Luchaire N, Cabrera-Bosquet L, Perálvarez M, Pilloni R, Welcker C, Champion A, Gantet P, Diedhiou AG, Manneh B, Aroca R, Vadez V, Laplaze L, Cubry P, Grondin A. 2022. Physiological and genetic control of transpiration efficiency in African rice, Oryza glaberrima Steud. Journal of Experimental Botany 73, 5279-5293.

Ahuja I, de Vos RC, Bones AM, Hall RD. 2010. Plant molecular stress responses face climate change. Trends in Plant Science 15, 664-674.

Ainsworth EA, Long SP. 2021. 30 years of free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE): What have we learned about future crop productivity and its potential for adaptation? Global Change Biology 27, 27-49.

Balazadeh S. 2022. A 'hot' cocktail: The multiple layers of thermomemory in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 65, 102147.

Bao Y, Aggarwal P, Robbins NE, 2nd, Sturrock CJ, Thompson MC, Tan HQ, Tham C, Duan L, Rodriguez PL, Vernoux T, Mooney SJ, Bennett MJ, Dinneny JR. 2014. Plant roots use a patterning mechanism to position lateral root branches toward available water. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 9319-9324.

Bloom AJ, Plant RE. 2021. Wheat grain yield decreased over the past 35 years, but protein content did not change. Journal of Experimental Botany 72, 6811-6821.

Boursiac Y, Pradal C, Bauget F, Lucas M, Delivorias S, Godin C, Maurel C. 2022. Phenotyping and modeling of root hydraulic architecture reveal critical determinants of axial water transport. Plant Physiology.

Burridge JD, Grondin A, Vadez V. 2022. Optimizing Crop Water Use for Drought and Climate Change Adaptation Requires a Multi-Scale Approach. Frontiers in Plant Science 13, 824720.

Busch FA, Sage RF, Farquhar GD. 2018. Plants increase CO2 uptake by assimilating nitrogen via the photorespiratory pathway. Nature Plants 4, 46-54.
**Casal JJ, Balasubramanian S.** 2019. Thermomorphogenesis. Annual Review in Plant Biology **70**, 321-346.

**Clark JW, Harris BJ, Hetherington AJ, Hurtado-Castano N, Brench RA, Casson S, Williams TA, Gray JE, Hetherington AM.** 2022. The origin and evolution of stomata. Current Biology **32**, R539-R553.

**Cubero-Font P, De Angeli A.** 2021. Connecting vacuolar and plasma membrane transport networks. New Phytologist **229**, 755-762.

**Delker C, Quint M, Wigge PA.** 2022. Recent advances in understanding thermomorphogenesis signaling. Current Opinion in Plant Biology **68**, 1022-31.

**Dhankher OP, Foyer CH.** 2018. Climate resilient crops for improving global food security and safety. Plant, Cell & Environment **41**, 877-884.

**Ding L, Milhiet T, Parent B, Meziane A, Tardieu F, Chaumont F.** 2022. The plasma membrane aquaporin ZmPIP2;5 enhances the sensitivity of stomatal closure to water deficit. Plant, Cell & Environment **45**, 1146-1156.

**Friedrich T, Oberkofler V, Trindade I, Altmann S, Brzezinka K, Lamke J, Gorka M, Kappel C, Sokolowska E, Skirycz A, Graf A, Baurle I.** 2021. Heteromeric HSFA2/HSFA3 complexes drive transcriptional memory after heat stress in Arabidopsis. Nature Communications **12**, 3426.

**Gojon A, Cassan O, Bach L, Lejay L, Martin A.** 2022. The decline of plant mineral nutrition under rising CO(2): physiological and molecular aspects of a bad deal. Trends in Plant Science.

**Guihur A, Rebeaud ME, Goloubinoff P.** 2022. How do plants feel the heat and survive? Trends in Biochemical Science **47**, 824-838.

**Horak H, Sierla M, Toldsepp K, Wang C, Wang YS, Nuhkat M, Valk E, Pechter P, Merilo E, Salojarvi J, Overmyer K, Loog M, Brosche M, Schroeder JI, Kangasjarvi J, Kollist H.** 2016. A Dominant Mutation in the HT1 Kinase Uncovers Roles of MAP Kinases and GHR1 in CO2-Induced Stomatal Closure. The Plant Cell **28**, 2493-2509.
Hu Y, Mesihovic A, Jimenez-Gomez JM, Roth S, Gebhardt P, Bublak D, Bovy A, Scharf KD, Schleiff E, Fragkostefanakis S. 2020. Natural variation in HsfA2 pre-mRNA splicing is associated with changes in thermotolerance during tomato domestication. New Phytologist **225**, 1297-1310.

**IPCC.** 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Masson-Delmotte V, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou, ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Jung JH, Barbosa AD, Hutin S, Kumita JR, Gao M, Derwort D, Silva CS, Lai X, Pierre E, Geng F, Kim SB, Baek S, Zubieta C, Jaeger KE, Wigge PA. 2020. A prion-like domain in ELF3 functions as a thermosensor in Arabidopsis. Nature **585**, 256-260.

Leverne L, Krieger-Liszkay A. 2021. Moderate drought stress stabilizes the primary quinone acceptor QA and the secondary quinone acceptor QB in photosystem II. Physiologia Plantarum **171**, 260-267.

Lynch JP. 2022. Harnessing root architecture to address global challenges. The Plant Journal **109**, 415-431.

Maurel C, Nacry P. 2020. Root architecture and hydraulics converge for acclimation to changing water availability. Nature Plants **6**, 744-749.

Mehra P, Pandey BK, Melebari D, Banda J, Leftley N, Couvreur V, Rowe J, Anfang M, De Gernier H, Morris E, Sturrock CJ, Mooney SJ, Swarup R, Faulkner C, Beeckman T, Bhalerao RP, Shani E, Jones AM, Dodd IC, Sharp RE, Sadanandom A, Draye X, Bennett MJ. 2022. Hydraulic flux-responsive hormone redistribution determines root branching. Science **378**, 762-768.

Nelson GC. 2010. The perfect storm. Significance **7**, 13-16.
Nicotra AB, Atkin OK, Bonser SP, Davidson AM, Finnegan EJ, Mathesius U, Poot P, Purugganan MD, Richards CL, Valladares F, van Kleunen M. 2010. Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends in Plant Science 15, 684-692.

Oberkofler V, Baurle I. 2022. Inducible epigenome editing probes for the role of histone H3K4 methylation in Arabidopsis heat stress memory. Plant Physiology 189, 703-714.

Oberkofler V, Pratx L, Baurle I. 2021. Epigenetic regulation of abiotic stress memory: maintaining the good things while they last. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 61, 102007.

Ohama N, Sato H, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K. 2017. Transcriptional Regulatory Network of Plant Heat Stress Response. Trends in Plant Science 22, 53-65.

Orman-Ligeza B, Morris EC, Parizot B, Lavigne T, Babe A, Ligeza A, Klein S, Sturrock C, Xuan W, Novak O, Ljung K, Fernandez MA, Rodriguez PL, Dodd IC, De Smet I, Chaumont F, Batoko H, Perilleux C, Lynch JP, Bennett MJ, Beeckman T, Draye X. 2018. The Xerobranching Response Represses Lateral Root Formation When Roots Are Not in Contact with Water. Current Biology 28, 3165-3173 e3165.

Orosa-Puente B, Leftley N, von Wangenheim D, Banda J, Srivastava AK, Hill K, Truskina J, Bhosale R, Morris E, Srivastava M, Kumpers B, Goh T, Fukaki H, Vermeer JEM, Vernoux T, Dinneny JR, French AP, Bishop A, Sadanandom A, Bennett MJ. 2018. Root branching toward water involves posttranslational modification of transcription factor ARF7. Science 362, 1407-1410.

Perdomo JA, Capó-Bauçà S, Carmo-Silva E, Galmés J. 2017. Rubisco and Rubisco Activase Play an Important Role in the Biochemical Limitations of Photosynthesis in Rice, Wheat, and Maize under High Temperature and Water Deficit. Frontiers in Plant Science 8, 490.

Perrella G, Baurle I, van Zanten M. 2022. Epigenetic regulation of thermomorphogenesis and heat stress tolerance. New Phytologist 234, 1144-1160.

Quint M, Delker C, Franklin KA, Wigge PA, Halliday KJ, van Zanten M. 2016. Molecular and genetic control of plant thermomorphogenesis. Nature Plants 2, 15190.
Rivero RM, Mittler R, Blumwald E, Zandalinas SI. 2022. Developing climate-resilient crops: improving plant tolerance to stress combination. The Plant Journal 109, 373-389.

Romero-Montepaone S, Poodts S, Fischbach P, Sellaro R, Zurbriggen MD, Casal JJ. 2020. Shade avoidance responses become more aggressive in warm environments. Plant, Cell & Environment 43, 1625-1636.

Rosenkranz RRE, Ullrich S, Lochli K, Simm S, Fragkostefanakis S. 2022. Relevance and Regulation of Alternative Splicing in Plant Heat Stress Response: Current Understanding and Future Directions. Frontiers in Plant Science 13, 911277.

Sedaghatmehr M, Mueller-Roeber B, Balazadeh S. 2016. The plastid metalloprotease FtsH6 and small heat shock protein HSP21 jointly regulate thermomemory in Arabidopsis. Nature Communications 7, 12439.

Shekhawat K, Saad MM, Sheikh A, Mariappan K, Al-Mahmoudi H, Abdulhakim F, Eida AA, Jalal R, Masmoudi K, Hirt H. 2021. Root endophyte induced plant thermotolerance by constitutive chromatin modification at heat stress memory gene loci. EMBO Rep 22, e51049.

Shi X, Bloom A. 2021. Photorespiration: The Futile Cycle? Plants (Basel) 10.

Sierla M, Horak H, Overmyer K, Waszczak C, Yarmolinsky D, Maierhofer T, Vainonen JP, Salojarvi J, Denessiouk K, Laanemets K, Toldsepp K, Vahisalu T, Gauthier A, Puukko T, Paulin L, Auvinen P, Geiger D, Hedrich R, Kollist H, Kangasjarvi J. 2018. The Receptor-like Pseudokinase GHR1 Is Required for Stomatal Closure. The Plant Cell 30, 2813-2837.

Simkin AJ, López-Calcagno PE, Raines CA. 2019. Feeding the world: improving photosynthetic efficiency for sustainable crop production. Journal of Experimental Botany 70, 1119-1140.

Sinclair TR, Rufty TW, Lewis RS. 2019. Increasing Photosynthesis: Unlikely Solution For World Food Problem. Trends in Plant Science 24, 1032-1039.

Thirumalaikumar VP, Gorka M, Schulz K, Masclaux-Daubresse C, Sampathkumar A, Skirycz A, Vierstra RD, Balazadeh S. 2021. Selective autophagy regulates heat stress
memory in Arabidopsis by NBR1-mediated targeting of HSP90.1 and ROF1. Autophagy **17**,
2184-2199.

Zhao C, Liu B, Piao S, Wang X, Lobell DB, Huang Y, Huang M, Yao Y, Bassu S, Ciais P,
Durand JL, Elliott J, Ewert F, Janssens IA, Li T, Lin E, Liu Q, Martre P, Muller C, Peng
S, Penuelas J, Ruane AC, 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. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences **114**, 9326-9331.
**Box 1. The main factors of climate change influencing plant growth, development and physiology.**

CO₂ concentration, temperature, and water availability are climate change-associated factors that are critical for plant growth and development. Climate change threatens both biodiversity and agriculture, with far-reaching implications for food security. Climate change is expected to reduce yield and to impact the quality of production, imposing major constraints on the higher demand of plant-based resources imposed by the growing population (Nelson, 2010). Thus, considerable research in the field focuses on understanding the physiological processes and underlying molecular mechanisms through which plants can adapt to these changes (Ahuja et al., 2010; Nicotra et al., 2010).

*Text included in the Box 1 illustration:*

**Heat:** Climate change will increase not only average temperatures, but also the frequency and extremity of heat waves. Thus, plants will have to face and adapt to increasing ambient temperatures as well as extremely high temperatures. With global yields of major crops predicted to decrease between 3 % and 7 % for every 1°C increase in temperature (Zhao *et al.*, 2017), the generation of more heat resilient plants is a pivotal target of breeding efforts to adapt agriculture to future climate.

**Drought:** Water is a key input for agriculture and the main factor limiting plant production worldwide. Climate change will lead to hotter and drier climates thus increasing the evaporative demand. At the same time, increasing competition from industries and cities for water together with reduced and more unpredictable rainfall reduces water availability for agriculture. This calls for a multiscale integrative approach combining the use of more water-efficient crops combined with water-efficient agronomical practices and water management strategies at the farm and landscape level.

**Elevated CO₂:** Climate change is driven by the elevation of green-house gases in the atmosphere, and mostly by that of CO₂. The concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere has increased from 340 ppm in 1980 to 420 ppm in 2022, and projections predict concentrations
ranging from 750 to 1000 ppm depending on the scenarios at the end of the century (IPCC, 2021). This will lead to major consequences for the physiology of plants. On the one hand, elevated CO₂ is expected to increase the production of green biomass, which is a benefit for agriculture. On the other hand, the growth under elevated CO₂ significantly reduces plant nutritional quality, which might negatively impact the risk of starvation and nutrient deficiencies.
**Box 2. Some future challenges for plant science in the context of climate change**

Despite the progress already made, many challenges lie ahead: in many cases it is still an open question whether the mechanisms identified in one developmental stage are transferable to other developmental stages within one species. Moreover, whether the mechanisms outlined above and unraveled mostly in model plants are conserved in crop species remains an important question to investigate. Devising better adapted crops will require a good understanding of the stress pattern faced by crops in the target environments, a process that will benefit from the recent advances in crop modelling (Burridge et al., 2022).

The emission of greenhouse gases (notably nitrous oxide coming indirectly from N fertilizers, and methane from livestock), the use of fossil fuels (including for the production of N fertilizers) and intensive irrigation make agriculture a major contributor to climate change.

Conversely, plant growth has been proposed as a solution to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and the associated climate change effects. Indeed, by their ability to fix C and produce biomass, plants are an ideal tool to capture and to sequester atmospheric CO2 either as biomass or in soils. The worldwide distribution of crops makes them an excellent system to deploy a C-sequestration plan at a large scale. However, we still need to identify the best root traits to mobilise to achieve this goal and how this will impact the carbon dynamics in the soil in realistic (field) conditions. In addition, the development of root systems capable of taking up nutrients and water more efficiently from the soil is a way to reduce the use of N fertilizers and water, thereby considerably reducing the impact of agriculture on climate. Therefore, the comprehension of the mechanisms driving root system development, N and water use efficiency under climate change is a major challenge to produce climate-resilient crops. Much remains to be understood in order to develop and use such climate-resilient plants in the near future (Dhankher and Foyer, 2018; Rivero et al., 2022).

Ultimately, developing strategies to adapt agriculture to and mitigate the effects of climate change is a challenge that will require a truly interdisciplinary effort. While plant breeding will be a key component, sustainable solutions are unlikely to arise just from one discipline and
will depend on system thinking. Plant biologists need to team up with other scientists such as soil scientists, agronomists, hydrologists, economists to address these pressing issues.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1</figcaption></figure>