Evolution of natural algal populations at elevated CO<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the next century, it is expected that the concentration of CO(2) in the atmosphere will roughly double (Watson et al., 2001, Climate Change 2001: the Scientific Basis, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva). Microbial populations, which have large population sizes and short generation times, may respond to CO(2) enrichment through genetic change. Here we describe microalgae isolated from the soil of natural CO(2) springs and compare these strains with lines of Chlamydomonas that were selected at elevated CO(2) in the laboratory. Both the laboratory and natural populations failed to evolve specific adaptations to elevated CO(2), and contain populations that grow poorly at ambient levels of CO(2). Laboratory and CO(2) spring populations also include lines whose growth rates are insensitive to CO(2). This demonstrates that, although laboratory selection experiments use simplified environments, the evolutionary responses that are seen following long-term CO(2) enrichment correspond to those found in natural populations that have experienced similar conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".