Plant growth and respiration re-visited: maintenance respiration defined – it is an emergent property of, not a separate process within, the system – and why the respiration : photosynthesis ratio is conservative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plant growth and respiration still has unresolved issues, examined here using a model. The aims of this work are to compare the model's predictions with McCree's observation-based respiration equation which led to the 'growth respiration/maintenance respiration paradigm' (GMRP) - this is required to give the model credibility; to clarify the nature of maintenance respiration (MR) using a model which does not represent MR explicitly; and to examine algebraic and numerical predictions for the respiration:photosynthesis ratio. METHODS: A two-state variable growth model is constructed, with structure and substrate, applicable on plant to ecosystem scales. Four processes are represented: photosynthesis, growth with growth respiration (GR), senescence giving a flux towards litter, and a recycling of some of this flux. There are four significant parameters: growth efficiency, rate constants for substrate utilization and structure senescence, and fraction of structure returned to the substrate pool. KEY RESULTS: The model can simulate McCree's data on respiration, providing an alternative interpretation to the GMRP. The model's parameters are related to parameters used in this paradigm. MR is defined and calculated in terms of the model's parameters in two ways: first during exponential growth at zero growth rate; and secondly at equilibrium. The approaches concur. The equilibrium respiration:photosynthesis ratio has the value of 0·4, depending only on growth efficiency and recycling fraction. CONCLUSIONS: McCree's equation is an approximation that the model can describe; it is mistaken to interpret his second coefficient as a maintenance requirement. An MR rate is defined and extracted algebraically from the model. MR as a specific process is not required and may be replaced with an approach from which an MR rate emerges. The model suggests that the respiration:photosynthesis ratio is conservative because it depends on two parameters only whose values are likely to be similar across ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".