Photosystem II heat tolerances characterize thermal generalists and the upper limit of carbon assimilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The heat tolerance of photosystem II (PSII) may promote carbon assimilation at higher temperatures and help explain plant responses to climate change. Higher PSII heat tolerance could lead to (a) increases in the high‐temperature compensation point (T max ); (b) increases in the thermal breadth of photosynthesis (i.e. the photosynthetic parameter Ω) to promote a thermal generalist strategy of carbon assimilation; (c) increases in the optimum rate of carbon assimilation P opt and faster carbon assimilation and/or (d) increases in the optimum temperature for photosynthesis (T opt ). To address these hypotheses, we tested if the T crit , T 50 and T 95 PSII heat tolerances were correlated with carbon assimilation parameters for 21 plant species. Our results did not support Hypothesis 1, but we observed that T 50 may be used to estimate the upper thermal limit for T max at the species level, and that community mean T crit may be useful for approximating T max . The T 50 and T 95 heat tolerance metrics were positively correlated with Ω in support of Hypothesis 2. We found no support for Hypotheses 3 or 4. Our study shows that high PSII heat tolerance is unlikely to improve carbon assimilation at higher temperatures but may characterize thermal generalists with slow resource acquisition strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 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".