Field analysis of photoprotection in co‐occurring cool climate<scp>C</scp><sub>3</sub>and<scp>C</scp><sub>4</sub>grasses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C(4) photosynthesis is particularly successful at high light intensities and high temperatures, but is relatively rare when the average growing season temperature is less than about 15°C. We tested the hypothesis that rapidly reversible photoprotection enables some C(4) species to tolerate cool climates, by focusing on two questions: (1) Do chlorophyll fluorescence responses differ seasonally between co-occurring C(3) and C(4) grasses in the field? (2) Does xanthophyll-mediated photoprotection differ between the two pathways? Spartina pectinata (C(4) ) and Calamogrostis canadensis (C(3) ) were sampled in a herbaceous fresh-water meadow in New Brunswick, Canada (45°N 66°W). Non-photochemical thermal energy dissipation (Φ(NPQ) ) and the epoxidation state of the xanthophyll cycle (EPS) were used as indicators of photoprotection. We observed no differential susceptibility to chronic photoinhibition (i.e. photodamage) between the C(3) and C(4) species, except potentially during spring emergence. On average, C. canadensis showed higher levels of protective dynamic photoinhibition throughout the growing season, but S. pectinata had greater Φ(NPQ) and lower EPS during seasonal and daily temperature minima. The low Rubisco capacity of C(4) species is a potential limiting factor to C(4) success at high latitudes, but our findings suggest that it is unlikely via a photoinhibitory feedback mechanism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".