The sensitivity of photosynthesis to O<sub>2</sub> and CO<sub>2</sub> concentration identifies strong Rubisco control above the thermal optimum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The biochemical model of C3 photosynthesis by Farquhar, von Caemmerer and Berry (FvCB) assumes that photosynthetic CO2 assimilation is limited by one of three biochemical processes that are not always easily discerned. This leads to improper assessments of biochemical limitations that limit the accuracy of the model predictions. We use the sensitivity of rates of CO2 assimilation and photosynthetic electron transport to changes in O2 and CO2 concentration in the chloroplast to evaluate photosynthetic limitations. Assessing the sensitivities to O2 and CO2 concentrations reduces the impact of uncertainties in the fixed parameters to a minimum and simultaneously entirely eliminates the need to determine the variable parameters of the model, such as Vcmax, J, or TP. Our analyses demonstrate that Rubisco limits carbon assimilation at high temperatures, while it is limited by triose phosphate utilization at lower temperatures and at higher CO2 concentrations. Measurements can be assigned a priori to one of the three functions of the FvCB model, allowing testing for the suitability of the selected fixed parameters of the model. This approach can improve the reliability of photosynthesis models on scales from the leaf level to estimating the global carbon budget.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".