MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2221163807 · doi:10.1111/pce.12699

Photosynthetic responses to chilling in a chilling‐tolerant and chilling‐sensitive<scp><i>Miscanthus</i></scp>hybrid

2015· article· en· W2221163807 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Friesen, Rowan F. Sage

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Cell & Environment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsPhotosynthesisMiscanthusFreezing toleranceBotanyBiologyHorticultureBioenergyBiotechnologyBiofuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Miscanthus is a C4 perennial grass being developed for bioenergy production in temperate regions where chilling events are common. To evaluate chilling effects on Miscanthus, we assessed the processes controlling net CO2 assimilation rate (A) in Miscanthus x giganteus (M161) and a chilling-sensitive Miscanthus hybrid (M115) before and after a chilling treatment of 12/5 °C. The temperature response of A and maximum Rubisco activity in vitro were identical below 20 °C in chilled and unchilled M161, demonstrating Rubisco capacity limits or co-limits A at cooler temperatures. By contrast, A in M115 decreased at all measurement temperatures after growth at 12/5 °C. Rubisco activity in vitro declined in proportion to the reduction in A in chilled M115 plants, indicating Rubisco capacity is responsible in part for the decline in A. Pyruvate orthophosphate dikinase activities were also reduced by the chilling treatment when assayed at 28 °C, indicating this enzyme may also contribute to the reduction in A in M115. The maximum extractable activities of PEPCase and NADP-ME remained largely unchanged after chilling. The carboxylation efficiency of the C4 cycle was depressed in both genotypes to a similar extent after chilling. ΦP :ΦCO2 remained unchanged in both genotypes indicating the C3 and C4 cycles decline equivalently upon chilling.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Cell & EnvironmentSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207