MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transfer conductance in second growth Douglas‐fir (<i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i> (Mirb.)Franco) canopies

2003· article· en· W2159244290 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles R. Warren, Gilbert Éthier, N. J. Livingston, N. J. Grant, D. H. Turpin, D. L. S. Harrison, T. Andrew Black

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Cell & Environment · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotosynthesisStomatal conductanceCanopyDouglas firBotanyChlorophyllRespirationCarboxylationHorticultureBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The internal conductance from intercellular spaces to the sites of carboxylation (gi) has only been measured in a few tree species and not in conifers, despite the fact it may impose a large limitation on photosynthesis. The present study provides the first estimates of gi for a coniferous species, and examines variation in gi with height and its relationships to anatomical, biochemical and physiological traits. Measurements were made on upper and lower canopy current‐year needles of 50‐year‐old Douglas‐fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco). Needle thickness and specific leaf area decreased by 30% from the top to bottom of the canopy. These anatomical/morphological changes were accompanied by modest variation in allocation of N to chlorophyll and the chlorophyll a/b ratio. Allocation of N to Rubisco did not vary with height, but the ratio of Rubisco to chlorophyll did owing to the aforementioned changes in allocation to chlorophyll. The value of gi was estimated in one tree from concurrent measurements of carbon isotope discrimination and net photosynthesis. To examine the variation in gi among trees a second independent method based on day respiration and the difference between the chloroplastic and intercellular photocompensation points (photocompensation point method) was used. Estimates of gi obtained by the two methods agreed well with values varying between 0.14 and 0.20 mol m−2 s−1. It is estimated that gi limits photosynthesis by approximately 20% as compared to an approximately 30% stomatal limitation (under well‐watered conditions). The value of gi scaled approximately with maximum rates of photosynthesis, which were significantly greater in upper canopy needles. Nevertheless, gi did not vary significantly with canopy height, owing to greater variability in gi than photosynthesis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.152
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations143
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Cell & EnvironmentSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207