Higher photosynthetic capacity from higher latitude: foliar characteristics and gas exchange of southern, central and northern populations of<i>Populus angustifolia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia James) is an obligate riparian poplar that is a foundation species in river valleys along the Rocky Mountains, spanning 16° of latitude from southern Arizona, USA to southern Alberta, Canada. Its current distribution is fragmented, and genetic variation shows regional population structure consistent with the effects of geographic barriers and past climate. It is thus very well-suited for investigating ecophysiological adaptation associated with latitude. In other section Tacamahaca poplar species, genotypes from higher latitudes show evidence of short-season adaptation with foliar traits that contribute to higher photosynthetic capacity. We tested for similar adaptation in three populations of narrowleaf cottonwoods: from Arizona (south), Alberta (north) and Utah, near the centre of the latitudinal distribution. We propagated 20 genotypes from each population in a common garden in Alberta, and measured foliar and physiological traits after 3 years. Leaves of genotypes from the northern population had higher leaf mass per area (LMA), increased nitrogen (N) content and higher carotenoid and chlorophyll content, and these were associated with higher light-saturated net photosynthesis (Asat). In leaves of all populations the majority of stomata were abaxial, with the proportion of abaxial stomata highest in the southern population. Stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration rates were higher in the northern population but water-use efficiency (Asat/gs) and leaf carbon isotope composition (δ(13)C) did not differ across the populations. These results (i) establish links between Asat and gs, N, chlorophyll and LMA among populations within this species, (ii) are consistent with the discrimination of populations from prior investigation of genetic variation and (iii) support the concept of latitudinal adaptation, whereby deciduous trees from higher latitudes display higher photosynthetic capacity, possibly compensating for a shorter and cooler growth season and reduced insolation.
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".