Photosynthetic responses and N allocation in Douglas-fir needles following a brief pulse of nutrients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The temporal distribution of soil nutrients is heterogeneous, and thus the uptake, storage and later remobilization of brief nutrient pulses may be critical for growth in nutrient-limited habitats. We investigated the response of photosynthesis and the major nitrogen (N) fractions in needles of 2-year-old Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) seedlings to a 15-day nutrient pulse (containing 250 ppm N). The nutrient pulse (N pulse) was imposed in late July, toward the end of the seedlings' third growing season, and subsequent changes in photosynthesis and needle N fractions were examined over the following 3 months. Needles are sites of photosynthesis and putative storage organs. Thus we tested two hypotheses: (1) N from the N pulse is quickly synthesized from soluble non-protein N into soluble proteins, especially Rubisco, and (2) the N pulse increases photosynthetic rates and thus growth. We also examined an alternative hypothesis that Rubisco functions also as a storage protein, in which case we would predict increases in amount of Rubisco in response to the N pulse without concomitant increases in photosynthesis. Soluble non-protein N was the most dynamic N pool and may have constituted a temporary storage reservoir; however, the quantitative significance of soluble non-protein N is questionable because this pool was at most only 7% of total N. Concentrations of Rubisco were unaffected by the N-pulse treatment and there was little evidence that Rubisco served as a storage protein. Nutrient-pulse seedlings added twice as much dry mass as controls during the 3 months post-treatment (Warren et al. 2003a). Over the same period, the maximum rate of light-saturated photosynthesis (A(max)) declined to low rates in control seedlings, whereas A(max) increased in N-pulse seedlings. Nevertheless, treatment and temporal trends in N and Rubisco content per unit area were poorly related to A(max), and it seems likely that photosynthesis was limited by additional factors, perhaps thylakoid proteins or an inadequate supply of other nutrients.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".