MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320994246 · doi:10.1093/treephys/tpv025

Carbohydrate regulation of photosynthesis and respiration from branch girdling in four species of wet tropical rain forest trees

2015· article· en· W2320994246 on OpenAlex
Shinichi Asao, Michael G. Ryan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster UniversityCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGirdlingPhotosynthesisPhloemRespirationBotanyCarbohydrateFructoseBiologyRespiration rateCarbon dioxideChemistryHorticultureEcologyFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How trees sense source-sink carbon balance remains unclear. One potential mechanism is a feedback from non-structural carbohydrates regulating photosynthesis and removing excess as waste respiration when the balance of photosynthesis against growth and metabolic activity changes. We tested this carbohydrate regulation of photosynthesis and respiration using branch girdling in four tree species in a wet tropical rainforest in Costa Rica. Because girdling severs phloem to stop carbohydrate export while leaving xylem intact to allow photosynthesis, we expected carbohydrates to accumulate in leaves to simulate a carbon imbalance. We varied girdling intensity by removing phloem in increments of one-quarter of the circumference (zero, one--quarter, half, three-quarters, full) and surrounded a target branch with fully girdled ones to create a gradient in leaf carbohydrate content. Light saturated photosynthesis rate was measured in situ, and foliar respiration rate and leaf carbohydrate content were measured after destructive harvest at the end of the treatment. Girdling intensity created no consistent or strong responses in leaf carbohydrates. Glucose and fructose slightly increased in all species by 3.4% per one-quarter girdle, total carbon content and leaf mass per area increased only in one species by 5.4 and 5.5% per one-quarter girdle, and starch did not change. Only full girdling lowered photosynthesis in three of four species by 59-69%, but the decrease in photosynthesis was unrelated to the increase in glucose and fructose content. Girdling did not affect respiration. The results suggest that leaf carbohydrate content remains relatively constant under carbon imbalance, and any changes are unlikely to regulate photosynthesis or respiration. Because girdling also stops the export of hormones and reactive oxygen species, girdling may induce physiological changes unrelated to carbohydrate accumulation and may not be an effective method to study carbohydrate feedback in leaves. In three species, removal of three-quarters of phloem area did not cause leaf carbohydrates to accumulate nor did it change photosynthesis or respiration, suggesting that phloem transport is flexible and transport rate per unit phloem can rapidly increase under an increase in carbohydrate supply relative to phloem area. Leaf carbohydrate content thus may be decoupled from whole plant carbon balance by phloem transport in some species, and carbohydrate regulation of photosynthesis and respiration may not be as common in trees as previous girdling studies suggest. Further studies in carbohydrate regulation should avoid using girdling as girdling can decrease photosynthesis through unintended means without the tested mechanisms of accumulating leaf carbohydrates.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.188 · 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