Variation in the phenology of photosynthesis among eastern white pine provenances in response to warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In higher-latitude trees, temperature and photoperiod control the beginning and end of the photosynthetically active season. Elevated temperature (ET) has advanced spring warming and delayed autumn cooling while photoperiod remains unchanged. We assessed the effects of warming on the length of the photosynthetically active season of three provenances of Pinus strobus L. seedlings from different latitudes, and evaluated the accuracy of the photochemical reflectance index (PRI) and the chlorophyll/carotenoid index (CCI) for tracking the predicted variation in spring and autumn phenology of photosynthesis among provenances. Seedlings from northern, local and southern P. strobus provenances were planted in a temperature-free-air-controlled enhancement (T-FACE) experiment and exposed to ET (+1.5/3°C; day/night). Over 18 months, we assessed photosynthetic phenology by measuring chlorophyll fluorescence, gas exchange, leaf spectral reflectance and pigment content. During autumn, all seedlings regardless of provenance followed the same sequence of phenological events with the initial downregulation of photosynthesis, followed by the modulation of non-photochemical quenching and associated adjustments of zeaxanthin pool sizes. However, the timing of autumn downregulation differed between provenances, with delayed onset in the southern provenance (SP) and earlier onset in the northern relative to the local provenance, indicating that photoperiod at the provenance origin is a dominant factor controlling autumn phenology. Experimental warming further delayed the downregulation of photosynthesis during autumn in the SP. A provenance effect during spring was also observed but was generally not significant. The vegetation indices PRI and CCI were both effective at tracking the seasonal variations of energy partitioning in needles and the differences of carotenoid pigments indicative of the stress status of needles. These results demonstrate that PRI and CCI can be useful tools for monitoring conifer phenology and for the remote monitoring of the length of the photosynthetically active season of conifers in a changing climate.
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".