It's only natural: Plant respiration in unmanaged systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiration plays a key role in the terrestrial carbon cycle and is a fundamental metabolic process in all plant tissues and cells. We review respiration from the perspective of plants that grow in their natural habitat and how it is influenced by wide-ranging elements at different scales, from metabolic substrate availability to shifts in climate. Decades of field-based measurements have honed our understanding of the biological and environmental controls on leaf, root, stem, and whole-organism respiration. Despite this effort, there remain gaps in our knowledge within and across species and ecosystems, especially in more challenging-to-measure tissues like roots. Recent databases of respiration rates and associated leaf traits from species representing diverse biomes, plant functional types, and regional climates have allowed for a wider-lens view at modeling this important CO2 flux. We also re-analyze published data sets to show that maximum leaf respiration rates (Rmax) in species from around the globe are related both to leaf economic traits and environmental variables (precipitation and air temperature), but that root respiration does not follow the same latitudinal trends previously published for leaf data. We encourage the ecophysiological community to continue to expand their study of plant respiration in tissues that are difficult to measure and at the whole plant and ecosystem levels to address outstanding questions in the field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".