Developmental Change in CO<sub>2</sub> Compensation Concentrations in Spartina alterniflora Results from Sigmoidal Photosynthetic CO<sub>2</sub> Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated seasonal patterns of photosynthetic responses to CO2 concentrations in Spartina alterniflora Loisel, an aerenchymous halophyte grass, from a salt marsh of the Bay of Fundy (NB, Canada), and from plants grown from rhizome in controlled-environment chambers. From late May to August, CO2 compensation concentrations (Γ) of field-grown leaves varied between 2.5-10.7 cm3(CO2) m-3, with a mean of 5.4 cm3(CO2) m-3. From September onwards field leaves showed CO2 compensation concentrations from 6.6-21.1 cm3(CO2) m-3, with a mean of 13.1 cm3 m-3 well into the C3-C4 intermediate range. The seasonal variability in Γ did not result from changing respiration, but rather from a sigmoidal response of net photosynthetic rate (PN) to applied CO2 concentration, found in all tested leaves but which became more pronounced late in the season. One explanation for the sigmoidal response of PN to external CO2 concentration could be internal delivery of CO2 from roots and rhizomes to bundle sheath cells via the aerenchyma, but the sigmoidal responses in S. alterniflora persisted out to the tips of leaves, while the aerenchyma extend only to mid-leaf. The sigmoidicity persisted when CO2 response curves were measured from low to high CO2, or from high to low CO2, and even when prolonged acclimation times were used at each CO2 concentration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".