Effect of cold acclimation on the photosynthetic performance of two ecotypes of Colobanthus quitensis (Kunth) Bartl.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of cold acclimation of two ecotypes (Antarctic and Andes) of Colobanthus quitensis (Kunth) Bartl. Caryophyllaceae on their photosynthetic characteristics and performance under high light (HL) were compared. Non-acclimated plants of the Antarctic ecotype exhibited a higher (34%) maximal rate of photosynthesis than the Andes ecotype. In cold-acclimated plants the light compensation point was increased. Dark respiration was significantly increased during the exposure to 4 degrees C in both ecotypes. Cold-acclimated Antarctic plants showed higher Phi(PSII) and qP compared with the Andes ecotype. In addition, the Antarctic ecotype exhibited higher heat dissipation (NPQ), especially in the cold-acclimated state, which was mainly associated with the fast relaxing component of non-photochemical quenching (NPQ(F)). By contrast, the Andes ecotype exhibited a lower NPQ(F) and a significant increase in the slowly relaxing component (NPQ(s)) at low temperature and HL, indicating higher sensitivity to low temperature-induced photoinhibition. Although the xanthophyll cycle was fully operational in both ecotypes, cold-acclimated Antarctic plants exposed to HL exhibited higher epoxidation state of the xanthophyll cycle pigments (EPS) compared with the cold-acclimated Andes ecotype. Thus, the photosynthetic apparatus of the Antarctic ecotype operates more efficiently than that of the Andes one, under a combination of low temperature and HL. The ecotype differences are discussed in relation to the different climatic conditions of the two Colobanthus.
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".