Respiratory Oxygen Uptake Is Not Decreased by an Instantaneous Elevation of [CO2], But Is Increased with Long-Term Growth in the Field at Elevated [CO2]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Averaged across many previous investigations, doubling the CO2 concentration ([CO2]) has frequently been reported to cause an instantaneous reduction of leaf dark respiration measured as CO2 efflux. No known mechanism accounts for this effect, and four recent studies have shown that the measurement of respiratory CO2 efflux is prone to experimental artifacts that could account for the reported response. Here, these artifacts are avoided by use of a high-resolution dual channel oxygen analyzer within an open gas exchange system to measure respiratory O2 uptake in normal air. Leaf O2 uptake was determined in response to instantaneous elevation of [CO2] in nine contrasting species and to long-term elevation in seven species from four field experiments. Over six hundred separate measurements of respiration failed to reveal any decrease in respiratory O2 uptake with an instantaneous increase in [CO2]. Respiration was found insensitive not only to doubling [CO2], but also to a 5-fold increase and to decrease to zero. Using a wide range of species and conditions, we confirm earlier reports that inhibition of respiration by instantaneous elevation of [CO2] is likely an experimental artifact. Instead of the expected decrease in respiration per unit leaf area in response to long-term growth in the field at elevated [CO2], there was a significant increase of 11% and 7% on an area and mass basis, respectively, averaged across all experiments. The findings suggest that leaf dark respiration will increase not decrease as atmospheric [CO2] rises.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".