The effects of phenotypic plasticity on photosynthetic performance in winter rye, winter wheat and <i>Brassica napus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contributions of phenotypic plasticity to photosynthetic performance in winter (cv Musketeer, cv Norstar) and spring (cv SR4A, cv Katepwa) rye (Secale cereale) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars grown at either 20°C [non-acclimated (NA)] or 5°C [cold acclimated (CA)] were assessed. The 22-40% increase in light-saturated rates of CO₂ assimilation in CA vs NA winter cereals were accounted for by phenotypic plasticity as indicated by the dwarf phenotype and increased specific leaf weight. However, phenotypic plasticity could not account for (1) the differential temperature sensitivity of CO₂ assimilation and photosynthetic electron transport, (2) the increased efficiency and light-saturated rates of photosynthetic electron transport or (3) the decreased light sensitivity of excitation pressure and non-photochemical quenching between NA and NA winter cultivars. Cold acclimation decreased photosynthetic performance of spring relative to winter cultivars. However, the differences in photosynthetic performances between CA winter and spring cultivars were dependent upon the basis on which photosynthetic performance was expressed. Overexpression of BNCBF17 in Brassica napus generally decreased the low temperature sensitivity (Q₁₀) of CO₂ assimilation and photosynthetic electron transport even though the latter had not been exposed to low temperature. Photosynthetic performance in wild type compared to the BNCBF17-overexpressing transgenic B. napus indicated that CBFs/DREBs regulate not only freezing tolerance but also govern plant architecture, leaf anatomy and photosynthetic performance. The apparent positive and negative effects of cold acclimation on photosynthetic performance are discussed in terms of the apparent costs and benefits of phenotypic plasticity, winter survival and reproductive fitness.
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".