Stomatal limitation of photosynthesis in winter production of greenhouse tomato plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In May, greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) plants near the end of their winter production cycle were shown to exhibit a diurnal photosynthetic decrease. In order to identify the physiological causes of this decline, we compared in May the photosynthetic characteristics of the fifth youngest leaves from tomato plants of different ages corresponding to a winter production (11‐month‐old plants) and to a spring production (5‐month‐old plants). Although the leaves were developed simultaneously under the same environmental conditions, only the ones from the winter production showed a diurnal decline of the in situ CO2 assimilation rate (ACO2). This was accompanied by a decline of internal CO2 and stomatal conductance and by large accumulations of hexoses. When stomatal closure was relieved under saturated CO2 concentration (5%) using a leaf‐disc electrode system, the fifth leaves of both tomato cultures had similar maximum quantum efficiency of O2 evolution (Φmax), light‐saturated rate of O2 evolution (Pmax) and quantum efficiency of photosystem II (PSII) photochemistry (ΔF/F′m, qP and qN). We concluded that the diurnal decline of ACO2 observed in winter tomato production during May originates from a stomatal limitation that is not dependent on environmental conditions but rather related to the developmental stage of the plants.
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".