Daily Variations of Photosynthetic Efficiency of Greenhouse Tomato Plants during Winter and Spring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily and seasonal variations of photosynthetic activity, chlorophyll a (Chl- a ) fluorescence and foliar carbohydrate content were studied in situ on greenhouse tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. `Trust') plants grown under CO 2 enrichment and supplemental lighting. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of seasonal variation of the photosynthetic photon flux ( PPF ) on photosynthetic efficiency of tomato plants and to determine the presence or absence of photosynthetic down-regulation under greenhouse growing conditions prevailing in northern latitudes. During winter, the fifth and the tenth leaves of tomato plants showed low, constant daily photosynthetic activity suggesting a source limitation under low PPF . In winter, the ratio of variable to maximum Chl- a fluorescence in dark adapted state (F v /F m ) remained constant during the day indicating no photoinhibition occurred. In February, an increase in photosynthetic activity was followed by a decline during March, April, and May accompanied by an increase in sucrose and daily starch concentrations and constant but high hexose level. This accumulation was a long-term response to high PPF and CO 2 enrichment which would be caused by a sink limitation. Thus, in spring we observed an in situ downregulation of photosynthesis. The ratio F v /F m decreased in spring compared to winter in response to increasing PPF . The daily decline of F v /F m was observed particularly as a midday depression followed by a recovery towards the end of the day. This indicated that tomato leaves were subject to a reversible inhibition in spring. F v /F m was lower in March than in April and May even though PPF was higher in April and May than in March. These results suggest that tomato plants develop an adaptive and protective strategy as PPF increases in spring.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".