Fluorescence-based primary productivity estimates are influenced by non-photochemical quenching dynamics in Arctic phytoplankton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlorophyll fluorescence-based estimates of primary productivity typically include dark or low-light pre-treatments to relax non-photochemical quenching (NPQ), a process that influences the relationship between PSII photochemistry and fluorescence yields. The time-scales of NPQ relaxation vary significantly between phytoplankton taxa and across environmental conditions, creating uncertainty in field-based productivity measurements derived from fluorescence. To address this practical challenge, we used fast repetition rate fluorometry to characterize NPQ relaxation kinetics in Arctic Ocean phytoplankton assemblages across a range of hydrographic regimes. Applying numerical fits to our data, we derived NPQ relaxation life times, and determined the relative contributions of various quenching components to the total NPQ signature across the different assemblages. Relaxation kinetics were best described as a combination of fast-, intermediate- and slow-relaxing processes, operating on time-scales of seconds, minutes, and hours, respectively. Across sampling locations and depths, total fluorescence quenching was dominated by the intermediate quenching component. Our results demonstrated an average NPQ relaxation life time of 20 ± 1.9 min, with faster relaxation among high light acclimated surface samples relative to lowlight acclimated sub-surface samples. We also used our results to examine the influence of NPQ relaxation on estimates of photosynthetic electron transport rates (ETR), testing the commonly held assumption that NPQ exerts proportional effects on light absorption (PSII functional absorption cross section, σPSII) and photochemical quantum efficiency (FV/FM). This assumption was violated in a number of phytoplankton assemblages that showed a significant decoupling of σPSII and FV/FM during NPQ relaxation, and an associated variability in ETR estimates. Decoupling of σPSII and FV/FM was most prevalent in samples displaying symptoms photoinhibition. Our results provide insights into the mechanisms and kinetics of NPQ in Arctic phytoplankton assemblages, with important implications for the use of FRRF to derive non-invasive, high-resolution estimates of photosynthetic activity in polar marine waters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".