Distribution of N, Rubisco and photosynthesis in <i>Pinus pinaster</i> and acclimation to light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The light–nitrogen hypothesis suggests canopy photosynthesis is maximized when there is a positive relationship between irradiance received by foliage, its nitrogen content (per unit area Narea), and maximum rate of photosynthesis (Amax). Relationships among relative irradiance and Narea, allocation of nitrogen within the photosynthetic apparatus to Rubisco and chlorophyll, and Amax were examined in Pinus pinaster Ait. needles up to 6 years of age. Measurements were made before bud break in August 1998, and in May 1999 after the first ‘winter’ rains. In August, Narea in P. pinaster needles decreased from 5·1 to 5·7 g m−2 in sunlit 1‐year‐old needles to 2·3 g m−2 in shaded 6‐year‐old needles. In May, Narea was 5–40% less but spatial trends were the same. At both sampling dates, Amax was less in old shaded needles compared with young sunlit needles, and was thus consistent with the light–nitrogen hypothesis. Relationships between Narea and Amax were positive at both dates yet varied in strength and form. Allocation of nitrogen within the photosynthetic apparatus was qualitatively consistent with acclimation to light (i.e. Rubisco/Chl decreased with shading), but quantitatively suboptimal with respect to photosynthesis owing to consistent over‐investment in Rubisco. This over‐investment increased with height in the canopy and was greater in May than in August.
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 | 0.001 | 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".