Photophysiological responses of marine diatoms to elevated CO2 and decreased pH: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diatoms dominate nearly half of current oceanic productivity, so their responses to ocean acidification are of general concern regarding future oceanic carbon sequestration. Community, mesocosm and laboratory studies show a range of diatom growth and photophysiological responses to increasing pCO2. Nearly 20 studies on effects of elevated pCO2 on diatoms have shown stimulations, no effects or inhibitions of growth rates. These differential responses could result from differences in experimental setups, cell densities, levels of light and temperature, but also from taxon-specific physiology. Generally, ocean acidification treatments of lowered pH with elevated CO2 stimulate diatom growth under low to moderate levels of light, but lead to growth inhibition when combined with excess light. Additionally, diatom cell sizes and their co-varying metabolic rates can influence responses to increasing pCO2 and decreasing pH, although cell size effects are confounded with taxonomic specificities in cell structures and metabolism. Here we summarise known diatom growth and photophysiological responses to increasing pCO2 and decreasing pH, and discuss some reasons for the diverse responses observed across studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".