MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138636475 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erab127

A meta-analysis of mesophyll conductance to CO2 in relation to major abiotic stresses in poplar species

2021· review· en· W3138636475 on OpenAlexaff
Raëd Elferjani, Lahcen Benomar, Mina Momayyezi, Roberto Tognetti, Ülo Niinemets, Raju Soolanayakanahally, Guillaume Théroux‐Rancourt, Tiina Tosens, Francesco Ripullone, Simon Bilodeau‐Gauthier, Mohammed S. Lamhamedi, Carlo Calfapietra, Mebarek Lamara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotosynthesisAbiotic componentStomatal conductanceCarboxylationBotanyCanopyTranspirationEnvironmental scienceWater contentHorticultureBiologyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesophyll conductance (gm) determines the diffusion of CO2 from the substomatal cavities to the site of carboxylation in the chloroplasts and represents a critical component of the diffusive limitation of photosynthesis. In this study, we evaluated the average effect sizes of different environmental constraints on gm in Populus spp., a forest tree model. We collected raw data of 815 A-Ci response curves from 26 datasets to estimate gm, using a single curve-fitting method to alleviate method-related bias. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effects of different abiotic stresses on gm. We found a significant increase in gm from the bottom to the top of the canopy that was concomitant with the increase of maximum rate of carboxylation and light-saturated photosynthetic rate (Amax). gm was positively associated with increases in soil moisture and nutrient availability, but was insensitive to increasing soil copper concentration and did not vary with atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results showed that gm was strongly related to Amax and to a lesser extent to stomatal conductance (gs). Moreover, a negative exponential relationship was obtained between gm and specific leaf area, which may be used to scale-up gm within the canopy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207