Leaf day respiration: low <scp>CO</scp><sub>2</sub> flux but high significance for metabolism and carbon balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary It has been 75 yr since leaf respiratory metabolism in the light (day respiration) was identified as a low‐flux metabolic pathway that accompanies photosynthesis. In principle, it provides carbon backbones for nitrogen assimilation and evolves CO 2 and thus impacts on plant carbon and nitrogen balances. However, for a long time, uncertainties have remained as to whether techniques used to measure day respiratory efflux were valid and whether day respiration responded to environmental gaseous conditions. In the past few years, significant advances have been made using carbon isotopes, ‘omics’ analyses and surveys of respiration rates in mesocosms or ecosystems. There is substantial evidence that day respiration should be viewed as a highly dynamic metabolic pathway that interacts with photosynthesis and photorespiration and responds to atmospheric CO 2 mole fraction. The view of leaf day respiration as a constant and/or negligible parameter of net carbon exchange is now outdated and it should now be regarded as a central actor of plant carbon‐use efficiency. Contents Summary 986 I. Introduction 987 II. Pioneering metabolic studies of day respiration with 14 C 987 III. Metabolic flux pattern of day respiration 988 IV. Significance of day respiration for leaf N assimilation 991 V. Significance of day respiration for leaf gas exchange 992 VI. Is day respiration influenced by CO 2 mole fraction? 995 VII. Significance of day respiration at the plant and ecosystem levels 997 VIII. Conclusions and perspectives 998 References 998
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".