<scp>C<sub>4</sub></scp> monocots and <scp>C<sub>4</sub></scp> dicots exhibit rapid photosynthetic induction response in contrast to <scp>C<sub>3</sub></scp> plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Considering the prevalence of ever‐changing conditions in the natural world, investigation of photosynthetic responses in C4 plants under fluctuating light is needed. Here, we studied the effect of dynamic illumination on photosynthesis in totally 10 C3, C3–C4 intermediate, C4‐like and C4 dicots and monocots at CO2 concentrations of 400 and 800 μmol mol−1. C4 and C4‐like plants had faster photosynthetic induction and light‐induced stomatal dynamics than C3 plants at 400 μmol mol−1, but not at 800 μmol mol−1 CO2, at which the CO2 supply rarely limits photosynthesis. C4 and C4‐like plants had a higher water use efficiency than C3 plants at both CO2 concentrations. There were positive correlations between photosynthetic induction and light‐induced stomatal response, together with CO2 compensation point, which was a parameter of the CO2‐concentrating mechanism of C4 photosynthesis. These results clearly show that C4 photosynthesis in both monocots and dicots adapts to fluctuating light conditions more efficiently than C3 photosynthesis. The rapid photosynthetic induction response in C4 plants can be attributed to the rapid stomatal dynamics, the CO2‐concentrating mechanism or both.
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) | 0.002 | 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".