Dynamic photo‐inhibition and carbon gain in a C<sub>4</sub>and a C<sub>3</sub>grass native to high latitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT C 4 plants are rare in the cool climates characteristic of high latitudes and altitudes, perhaps because of an enhanced susceptibility to photo‐inhibition at low temperatures relative to C 3 species. In the present study we tested the hypothesis that low‐temperature photo‐inhibition is more detrimental to carbon gain in the C 4 grass Muhlenbergia glomerata than the C 3 species Calamogrostis Canadensis . These grasses occur together in boreal fens in northern Canada. Plants were grown under cool (14/10 °C day/night) and warm (26/22 °C) temperatures before measurement of the light responses of photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence at different temperatures. Cool growth temperatures led to reduced rates of photosynthesis in M. glomerata at all measurement temperatures, but had a smaller effect on the C 3 species. In both species the amount of xanthophyll cycle pigments increased when plants were grown at 14/10 °C, and in M. glomerata the xanthophyll epoxidation state was greatly reduced. The detrimental effect of low growth temperature on photosynthesis in M. glomerata was almost completely reversed by a 24‐h exposure to the warm‐temperature regime. These data indicate that reversible dynamic photo‐inhibition is a strategy by which C 4 species may tolerate cool climates and overcome the Rubisco limitation that is prevalent at low temperatures in C 4 plants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".