The temperature response of C<sub>3</sub>and C<sub>4</sub>photosynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review the current understanding of the temperature responses of C(3) and C(4) photosynthesis across thermal ranges that do not harm the photosynthetic apparatus. In C(3) species, photosynthesis is classically considered to be limited by the capacities of ribulose 1.5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), ribulose bisphosphate (RuBP) regeneration or P(i) regeneration. Using both theoretical and empirical evidence, we describe the temperature response of instantaneous net CO(2) assimilation rate (A) in terms of these limitations, and evaluate possible limitations on A at elevated temperatures arising from heat-induced lability of Rubisco activase. In C(3) plants, Rubisco capacity is the predominant limitation on A across a wide range of temperatures at low CO(2) (<300 microbar), while at elevated CO(2), the limitation shifts to P(i) regeneration capacity at suboptimal temperatures, and either electron transport capacity or Rubisco activase capacity at supraoptimal temperatures. In C(4) plants, Rubisco capacity limits A below 20 degrees C in chilling-tolerant species, but the control over A at elevated temperature remains uncertain. Acclimation of C(3) photosynthesis to suboptimal growth temperature is commonly associated with a disproportional enhancement of the P(i) regeneration capacity. Above the thermal optimum, acclimation of A to increasing growth temperature is associated with increased electron transport capacity and/or greater heat stability of Rubisco activase. In many C(4) species from warm habitats, acclimation to cooler growth conditions increases levels of Rubisco and C(4) cycle enzymes which then enhance A below the thermal optimum. By contrast, few C(4) species adapted to cooler habitats increase Rubisco content during acclimation to reduced growth temperature; as a result, A changes little at suboptimal temperatures. Global change is likely to cause a widespread shift in patterns of photosynthetic limitation in higher plants. Limitations in electron transport and Rubisco activase capacity should be more common in the warmer, high CO(2) conditions expected by the end of the century.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".