Nitrogen starvation induces distinct photosynthetic responses and recovery dynamics in diatoms and prasinophytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nitrogen stress is an important control on the growth of phytoplankton and varying responses to this common condition among taxa may affect their relative success within phytoplankton communities. We analyzed photosynthetic responses to nitrogen (N) stress in two classes of phytoplankton that often dominate their respective size ranges, diatoms and prasinophytes, selecting species of distinct niches within each class. Changes in photosynthetic structures appeared similar within each class during N stress, but photophysiological and growth responses were more species- or niche-specific. In the coastal diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana and the oceanic diatom T. weissflogii, N starvation induced large declines in photosynthetic pigments and Photosystem II (PSII) quantity and activity as well as increases in the effective absorption cross-section of PSII photochemistry (σ'PSII). These diatoms also increased photoprotection through energy-dependent non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) during N starvation. Resupply of N in diatoms caused rapid recovery of growth and relaxation of NPQ, while recovery of PSII photochemistry was slower. In contrast, the prasinophytes Micromonas sp., an Arctic Ocean species, and Ostreococcus tauri, a temperate coastal eutrophile, showed little change in photosynthetic pigments and structures and a decline or no change, respectively, in σ'PSII with N starvation. Growth and PSII function recovered quickly in Micromonas sp. after resupply of N while O. tauri failed to recover N-replete levels of electron transfer from PSII and growth, possibly due to their distinct photoprotective strategies. O. tauri induced energy-dependent NPQ for photoprotection that may suit its variable and nutrient-rich habitat. Micromonas sp. relies upon both energy-dependent NPQ and a sustained, energy-independent NPQ mechanism. A strategy in Micromonas sp. that permits photoprotection with little change in photosynthetic structures is consistent with its Arctic niche, where low temperatures and thus low biosynthetic rates create higher opportunity costs to rebuild photosynthetic structures.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".