MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316508595 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erw156

A portrait of the C<sub>4</sub>photosynthetic family on the 50th anniversary of its discovery: species number, evolutionary lineages, and Hall of Fame

2016· review· en· W2316508595 on OpenAlexaff
Rowan F. Sage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGazi Üniversitesi
KeywordsBiologyLineage (genetic)EudicotsHabitatEcologyBotanyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifty years ago, the C4 photosynthetic pathway was first characterized. In the subsequent five decades, much has been learned about C4 plants, such that it is now possible to place nearly all C4 species into their respective evolutionary lineages. Sixty-one independent lineages of C4 photosynthesis are identified, with additional, ancillary C4 origins possible in 12 of these principal lineages. The lineages produced ~8100 C4 species (5044 grasses, 1322 sedges, and 1777 eudicots). Using midpoints of stem and crown node dates in their respective phylogenies, the oldest and most speciose C4 lineage is the grass lineage Chloridoideae, estimated to be near 30 million years old. Most C4 lineages are estimated to be younger than 15 million years. Older C4 lineages tend to be more speciose, while those younger than 7 million years have <43 species each. To further highlight C4 photosynthesis for a 50th anniversary snapshot, a Hall of Fame comprised of the 40 most significant C4 species is presented. Over the next 50 years, preservation of the Earth's C4 diversity is a concern, largely because of habitat loss due to elevated CO2 effects, invasive species, and expanded agricultural activities. Ironically, some members of the C4 Hall of Fame are leading threats to the natural C4 flora due to their association with human activities on landscapes where most C4 plants occur.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations214
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207