Curvature in models of the photosynthesis‐irradiance response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An equation for the rate of photosynthesis as a function of irradiance introduced by T. T. Bannister included an empirical parameter b to account for observed variations in curvature between the initial slope and the maximum rate of photosynthesis. Yet researchers have generally favored equations with fixed curvature, possibly because b was viewed as having no physiological meaning. We developed an analytic photosynthesis-irradiance equation relating variations in curvature to changes in the degree of connectivity between photosystems, and also considered a recently published alternative, based on changes in the size of the plastoquinone pool. When fitted to a set of 185 observed photosynthesis-irradiance curves, it was found that the Bannister equation provided the best fit more frequently compared to either of the analytic equations. While Bannister's curvature parameter engendered negligible improvement in the statistical fit to the study data, we argued that the parameter is nevertheless quite useful because it allows for consistent estimates of initial slope and saturation irradiance for observations exhibiting a range of curvatures, which would otherwise have to be fitted to different fixed-curvature equations. Using theoretical models, we also found that intra- and intercellular self-shading can result in biased estimates of both curvature and the saturation irradiance parameter. We concluded that Bannister's is the best currently available equation accounting for variations in curvature precisely because it does not assign inappropriate physiological meaning to its curvature parameter, and we proposed that b should be thought of as the expression of the integration of all factors impacting curvature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".