Limitations to photosynthetic carbon gain in timberline <i>Abies lasiocarpa</i> seedlings during prolonged drought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photosynthesis, water status, and associated physiological parameters were measured in chronically drought-stressed seedlings (5 years of below-average precipitation, 107 cm net deficit) of Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. above (treeline ecotone site, TS) and below (forest site, FS) a Rocky Mountain timberline. In contrast to normal seasonal patterns reported for timberline conifer trees, xylem water potentials were exceptionally low in early summer and remained low for the rest of the summer. Although photosynthesis was not significantly different between the two sites, early season photosynthesis was greater than late-season photosynthesis, especially at FS. Mean daily values of leaf conductance to water vapor (gwv) and transpiration (E) were also low at the beginning of summer (gwv from 0.01 mol·m–2·s–1 to 0.13 mol·m–2·s–1 and E from 0.4 μmol·m–2·s–1 to 2.9 μmol·m–2·s–1) and continued to decrease through summer (an approximate 10-fold decrease in gwv and a 2-fold to 3-fold decrease in E), which resulted in increasing water-use efficiency as summer progressed. Although the slope of instantaneous photosynthesis – intercellular CO2 concentration curves was reduced (lower carboxylation efficiency) from July to September, the relative stomatal limitation to carbon gain was less than 50% over the entire measurement period. Mean daily intercellular CO2 concentrations decreased from near ambient levels (approximately 350–360 ppm) to 290 ppm over the course of summer. Overall, nonstomatal limitations appeared to have the largest impact on photosynthetic carbon gain, although seasonal decreases in leaf conductance and a corresponding depletion of intercellular CO2 indicated that there were also significant stomatal limitations to carbon gain that resulted in a continued regulation of greater water use efficiency.
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".