Optimal stomatal theory predicts <scp>CO<sub>2</sub></scp> responses of stomatal conductance in both gymnosperm and angiosperm trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Optimal stomatal theory predicts that stomata operate to maximise photosynthesis ( A net ) and minimise transpirational water loss to achieve optimal intrinsic water‐use efficiency (iWUE). We tested whether this theory can predict stomatal responses to elevated atmospheric CO 2 (eCO 2 ), and whether it can capture differences in responsiveness among woody plant functional types (PFTs). We conducted a meta‐analysis of tree studies of the effect of eCO 2 on iWUE and its components A net and stomatal conductance ( g s ). We compared three PFTs, using the unified stomatal optimisation (USO) model to account for confounding effects of leaf–air vapour pressure difference ( D ). We expected smaller g s , but greater A net , responses to eCO 2 in gymnosperms compared with angiosperm PFTs. We found that iWUE increased in proportion to increasing eCO 2 in all PFTs, and that increases in A net had stronger effects than reductions in g s . The USO model correctly captured stomatal behaviour with eCO 2 across most datasets. The chief difference among PFTs was a lower stomatal slope parameter ( g 1 ) for the gymnosperm, compared with angiosperm, species. Land surface models can use the USO model to describe stomatal behaviour under changing atmospheric CO 2 conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".