MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178831285 · doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.469

How Terrestrial Organisms Sense, Signal, and Respond to Carbon Dioxide

2002· article· en· W2178831285 on OpenAlexaff
Rowan F. Sage

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuBisCOCarbonic anhydrasePhotosynthesisBiologyCarbon dioxideAcclimatizationPhytochromeBotanyBiochemistryEcologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO(2) content, there is a need to understand how organisms sense and respond to CO(2) variation. An important distinction is whether CO(2) responses result from direct effects of CO(2) on signal-transduction pathways, enzyme catalysis, or regulatory processes, as opposed to indirect, secondary responses that are a consequence of the direct effects. In plants, direct effects occur because rising CO(2) A) increases the activity of Ribulose-1,5-bisphopshate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) via its role as a substrate for RuBP carboxylation and its inhibition of RuBP oxygenation; B) reduces stomatal aperture; C) alters mitochondrial respiration; and D) possibly reduces transcription of genes for Rubisco activase and carbonic anhydrase. Because of these direct effects, the carbon and water balance of plants is altered leading to secondary effects on growth, resource partitioning and defense compound synthesis. Reduced investment in photosynthetic protein is one of the characteristic acclimation responses of plants to high CO(2). This is modulated by increased carbohydrate levels, probably in concert with hormone signals from the roots. Roots are hypothesized to be the main control points for CO(2) acclimation because they are well situated to integrate the carbohydrate status of the plant. In higher fungi, development of the mushroom fruiting body is inhibited at high CO(2), but the mechanism is poorly known. Fungal CO(2) sensing may serve to position the spore-bearing tissue above the soil boundary layer to ensure effective spore dispersal. The animals that are most sensitive to anthropogenic CO(2) enrichment are insects. Many insects have a well-developed ability to sense CO(2) variation as a means of locating food. Unlike plants, insects have CO(2) receptors that can detect variation in CO(2) as low as 0.5 ppm. However, the sensitivity of these receptors is reduced in atmospheres with double or triple current levels of CO(2), indicating some insect species may be threatened by rising atmospheric CO(2).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207