Why plants lose their inhibitions in the Arctic: functional traits, phylogenetics and respiration in the light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic vegetation represents a significant portion of the world’s global carbon stocks and is particularly sensitive to global climate change. Net plant carbon exchange depends on both photosynthesis and respiration, the latter of which is poorly understood in arctic ecosystems and yet is highly sensitive to global environmental change.Mitochondrial respiration can confound measurements of photosynthesis and thus is often isolated by measuring it in the dark. We also know,however, that respiration can be inhibited by light, which complicates extrapolations from measurements in darkness. Furthermore, the extent of this inhibition may be unique in arctic ecosystems as a result of the constant daylight they receive during growing seasons.We applied the Kok method to a survey of forty of the most common tundra plants found in communities surrounding the Toolik Lake Long Term Ecological Research Site in Alaska’s North Slope. The Kok method segregates rates of respiration in the dark and those in the light by applying incrementally decreasing light levels to leaves. Using this approach, we were able to compare these different rates and determine the extent of light inhibition across a variety of species, functional groups and habitat types. Respiration is less inhibited by light in the Arctic than it is expected to be based on observations from lower latitudes. We measured several functional traits in order to identify the mechanisms plants have used to acclimatize to constant daylight. Carbohydrate content,photosynthetic capacity (Amax) and specific leaf area (SLA) were significant predictors of levels of inhibition. There did not appear to be a significant effect of functional group membership on inhibition. We detected considerable intraspecific variation in trait values and levels of inhibition and thus species identity did not explain variation in inhibition. Preliminary tests for effects of evolutionary history on levels of inhibition indicate that inhibition may be lower in plants that have diversified at higher latitudes.These results underline the importance of accounting for respiration in the light in arctic carbon models. Arctic carbon stocks may be significantly lower than previously thought since current estimates don’t include respiration in the light.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".