Two different strategies for light utilization in photosynthesis in relation to growth and cold acclimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Seedlings of Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta L.) and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Monopol) were cold acclimated under controlled conditions to induce frost hardiness. Lodgepole pine responded to cold acclimation by partial inhibition of photosynthesis with an associated partial loss of photosystem II reaction centres, and a reduction in needle chlorophyll content. This was accompanied by a low daily carbon gain, and the development of a high and sustained capacity for non‐photochemical quenching of absorbed light. This sustained dissipation of absorbed light as heat correlated with an increased de‐epoxidation of the xanthophyll cycle pigments forming the quenching forms antheraxanthin and zeaxanthin. In addition, the PsbS protein known to bind chlorophyll and the xanthophyll cycle pigments increased strongly during cold acclimation of pine. In contrast, winter wheat maintained high photosynthetic rates, showed no loss of chlorophyll content per leaf area, and exhibited a high daily carbon gain and a minimal non‐photochemical quenching after cold acclimation. In accordance, cold acclimation of wheat neither increased the de‐epoxidation of the xanthophylls nor the content of the PsbS protein. These different responses of photosynthesis to cold acclimation are correlated with pine, reducing its need for assimilates when entering dormancy associated with termination of primary growth, whereas winter wheat maintains a high need for assimilates as it continues to grow and develop throughout the cold‐acclimation period. It appears that without evolving a sustained ability for controlled dissipation of absorbed light as heat throughout the winter, winter green conifers would not have managed to adapt and establish themselves so successfully in the cold climatic zones of the northern hemisphere.
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".