Photoacclimation and Light Thresholds for Cold Temperate Seagrasses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water quality deterioration is expected to worsen the light conditions in shallow coastal waters with increasing human activities. Temperate seagrasses are known to tolerate a highly fluctuating light environment. However, depending on their ability to adjust to some decline in light conditions, decreases in daily light quantity and quality could affect seagrass physiology, productivity, and, eventually, survival if the Minimum Quantum Requirements (MQR) are not reached. To better understand if, how, and to what extent photosynthetic adjustments contribute to light acclimation, eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) shoots from the cold temperate St. Lawrence marine estuary (Rimouski, QC, Canada) were exposed to seven light intensity treatments (6, 36, 74, 133, 355, 503, and 860 μmol photons m–2 s–1, 14:10 light:dark photoperiod). Photosynthetic capacity and efficiency were quantified after five and 25 days of light exposure by Pulse Amplitude Modulated (PAM) fluorometry to assess the rapid response of the photosynthetic apparatus and its acclimation potential. Photoacclimation was also studied through physiological responses of leaves and shoots (gross and net primary production, pigment content, and light absorption). Shoots showed proof of photosynthetic adjustments at irradiances below 200 μmol photons m–2 s–1, which was identified as the threshold between limiting and saturating irradiances. Rapid Light Curves (RLC) and net primary production (NPP) rates revealed sustained maximal photosynthetic rates from the highest light treatments down to 74 μmol photons m–2 s–1, while a compensation point (NPP = 0) of 13.7 μmol photons m–2 s–1 was identified. In addition, an important package effect was observed, since an almost three-fold increase in chlorophyll content in the lowest compared to the highest light treatment did not change the leaves’ light absorption. These results shed new light on photosynthetic and physiological processes, triggering light acclimation in cold temperate eelgrass. Our study documents an MQR value for eelgrass in the St. Lawrence estuary, which is highly pertinent in the context of conservation and restoration of eelgrass meadows.
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) | 0.001 | 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".