Boreal conifers maintain carbon uptake with warming despite failure to track optimal temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Warming shifts the thermal optimum of net photosynthesis (ToptA) to higher temperatures. However, our knowledge of this shift is mainly derived from seedlings grown in greenhouses under ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) conditions. It is unclear whether shifts in ToptA of field-grown trees will keep pace with the temperatures predicted for the 21st century under elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Here, using a whole-ecosystem warming controlled experiment under either ambient or elevated CO2 levels, we show that ToptA of mature boreal conifers increased with warming. However, shifts in ToptA did not keep pace with warming as ToptA only increased by 0.26–0.35 °C per 1 °C of warming. Net photosynthetic rates estimated at the mean growth temperature increased with warming in elevated CO2 spruce, while remaining constant in ambient CO2 spruce and in both ambient CO2 and elevated CO2 tamarack with warming. Although shifts in ToptA of these two species are insufficient to keep pace with warming, these boreal conifers can thermally acclimate photosynthesis to maintain carbon uptake in future air temperatures.
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".