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 CO 2 assimilation rate (A CO 2 ). This was accompanied by a decline of internal CO 2 and stomatal conductance and by large accumulations of hexoses. When stomatal closure was relieved under saturated CO 2 concentration (5%) using a leaf‐disc electrode system, the fifth leaves of both tomato cultures had similar maximum quantum efficiency of O 2 evolution (Φ max ), light‐saturated rate of O 2 evolution (P max ) and quantum efficiency of photosystem II (PSII) photochemistry (ΔF/F′ m , q P and q N ). We concluded that the diurnal decline of A CO 2 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 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".