MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463579259 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0026

Differences in photosynthetic capacity, chlorophyll fluorescence, and antioxidant system between invasive <i>Alnus formosana</i> and its native congener in response to different irradiance levels

2016· article· en· W2463579259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shiliang Liu, Rongjie Yang, Bo Ren, Maohua Wang, Mingdong Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhotoinhibitionBiologyPhotosynthesisPhotoprotectionBotanyChlorophyll fluorescenceAcclimatizationChlorophyllStomatal conductanceIrradianceHorticulturePhotosystem II

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared the invasive Alnus formosana (Burk.) Makino with its native congener (Alnus cremastogyne Burk.) at three irradiances in terms of photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence, and antioxidant system. The increased light-saturated photosynthetic rate (A max ) and light saturation point (LSP) contributed directly to the increased performance of the invasive. The invasive species had also higher plasticity in carotenoid and total chlorophyll than the native species at 100% irradiance, potentially contributing to invasion success in high-irradiance locations via photoprotection. Moreover, the diurnal photoinhibition of photosynthesis, as judged by the maximum photochemical efficiency of PSII (F v /F m ) of dark-adapted leaves, was more severe in the native species than in the invasive species. With increasing irradiance, the invasive exhibited increased antioxidant activities and higher antioxidant levels to support the adverse conditions of both low- and high-irradiance acclimation. In contrast, the intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i ) and stomatal limitation (L s ) decreased with increases in the net photosynthetic rate (A n ), stomatal conductance (G s ), and transpiration rate (T r ). We speculated that L s was the main factor inhibiting the A n for both studied species. These results first indicated that the invasive may occupy new habitats successfully through tolerating shading at low irradiance and out-compete native species through higher A max and antioxidant levels when irradiance is increased.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207