MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960079488 · doi:10.1139/b2012-007

Cold acclimation inhibits CO<sub>2</sub>-dependent stimulation of photosynthesis in spring wheat and spring rye

2012· article· en· W1960079488 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Keshav Dahal, Khalil Kane, Fathey Sarhan, Bernard Grodzinski, Norman P. A. Hüner

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversité du Québec à MontréalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarSecaleBiologyAcclimatizationPhotosynthesisPoaceaeRuBisCOHorticultureAgronomyBotanyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the effects of short-term elevated CO 2 on the light-saturated rates of photosynthesis (A sat ) of spring (‘SR4A’, ‘Katepwa’) and winter (‘Musketeer’, ‘Norstar’) wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) and rye ( Secale cereale L.) cultivars grown at ambient CO 2 (380 µmol C·mol –1 ) at either 20/16 °C (nonacclimated, NA) or 5/5 °C (cold acclimated, CA). In spring wheat–rye, cold acclimation decreased CO 2 -stimulation of A sat by 45%–60% relative to NA controls following a short-term (80 h) shift of plants from ambient to elevated CO 2 (700 µmol C·mol –1 ). In contrast, in winter wheat–rye, cold acclimation enhanced CO 2 -stimulation of A sat by 15%–35% relative to NA controls upon a shift to elevated CO 2 . The stimulation observed for CA spring cultivars was about 60% less than that of CA winter cultivars. We conclude that a short-term exposure of spring cultivars to elevated CO 2 cannot compensate for the cold acclimation-induced inhibition of A sat . Cold acclimation of spring cultivars appeared to exacerbate Rubisco CO 2 substrate limitations present under ambient CO 2 . Furthermore, CA spring cultivars were unable to adjust their short-term temperature sensitivity of A sat under elevated CO 2 compared with the winter cultivars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207