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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (Amax) 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 (Fv/Fm) 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 CO2 concentration (Ci) and stomatal limitation (Ls) decreased with increases in the net photosynthetic rate (An), stomatal conductance (Gs), and transpiration rate (Tr). We speculated that Ls was the main factor inhibiting the An 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 Amax 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 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".