Increased Air Temperature during Simulated Autumn Conditions Does Not Increase Photosynthetic Carbon Gain But Affects the Dissipation of Excess Energy in Seedlings of the Evergreen Conifer Jack Pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temperature and daylength act as environmental signals that determine the length of the growing season in boreal evergreen conifers. Climate change might affect the seasonal development of these trees, as they will experience naturally decreasing daylength during autumn, while at the same time warmer air temperature will maintain photosynthesis and respiration. We characterized the down-regulation of photosynthetic gas exchange and the mechanisms involved in the dissipation of energy in Jack pine (Pinus banksiana) in controlled environments during a simulated summer-autumn transition under natural conditions and conditions with altered air temperature and photoperiod. Using a factorial design, we dissected the effects of daylength and temperature. Control plants were grown at either warm summer conditions with 16-h photoperiod and 22 degrees C or conditions representing a cool autumn with 8 h/7 degrees C. To assess the impact of photoperiod and temperature on photosynthesis and energy dissipation, plants were also grown under either cold summer (16-h photoperiod/7 degrees C) or warm autumn conditions (8-h photoperiod/22 degrees C). Photosynthetic gas exchange was affected by both daylength and temperature. Assimilation and respiration rates under warm autumn conditions were only about one-half of the summer values but were similar to values obtained for cold summer and natural autumn treatments. In contrast, photosynthetic efficiency was largely determined by temperature but not by daylength. Plants of different treatments followed different strategies for dissipating excess energy. Whereas in the warm summer treatment safe dissipation of excess energy was facilitated via zeaxanthin, in all other treatments dissipation of excess energy was facilitated predominantly via increased aggregation of the light-harvesting complex of photosystem II. These differences were accompanied by a lower deepoxidation state and larger amounts of beta-carotene in the warm autumn treatment as well as by changes in the abundance of thylakoid membrane proteins compared to the summer condition. We conclude that photoperiod control of dormancy in Jack pine appears to negate any potential for an increased carbon gain associated with higher temperatures during the autumn season.
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".