Photosystem II inhibition by moderate light under low temperature in intact leaves of chilling‐sensitive and ‐tolerant plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photosystem II (PSII) activity was examsined in leaves of chilling-sensitive cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.), and maize (Zea mays L.), and in chilling-tolerant barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) illuminated with moderate white light (300 micro mol m(-2) s(-1)) at 4 degrees C using chlorophyll a fluorescence measurements. PSII activity was inhibited in leaves of all the four plants as suggested by the decline in F(v)/F(m), 1/F(o) - 1/F(m), and F(v)/F(o) values. The changes in initial fluorescence level (F(o)), F(v)/F(m), 1/F(o) - /1/F(m), and F(v)/F(o) ratios indicate a stronger PSII inhibition in cucumber, maize and tomato plants. The kinetics of chlorophyll a fluorescence rise showed complex changes in the magnitudes and rise of O-J, J-I, and I-P phases caused by photoinhibition. The selective suppression of the J-I phase of fluorescence rise kinetics provides evidence for weakened electron donation from the oxidizing side, whereas the accumulation of reduced Q(A) suggests damage to the acceptor side of PSII. These findings imply that the process of chilling-induced photoinhibition involves damage to more than one site in the PSII complexes. Furthermore, comparative analyses of the decline in F(v)/F(o) and photooxidation of P700 explicitly show that the extent of photoinhibitory damage to PSII and photosystem I is similar in leaves of cucumber plants grown at a low irradiance level.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".