Photosynthetic responses to temperature across the tropics: a meta-analytic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Tropical forests exchange more carbon dioxide (CO2) with the atmosphere than any other terrestrial biome. Yet, uncertainty in the projected carbon balance over the next century is roughly three times greater for the tropics than other for ecosystems. Our limited knowledge of tropical plant physiological responses, including photosynthetic, to climate change is a substantial source of uncertainty in our ability to forecast the global terrestrial carbon sink. METHODS: We used a meta-analytic approach, focusing on tropical photosynthetic temperature responses, to address this knowledge gap. Our dataset, gleaned from 18 independent studies, included leaf-level light-saturated photosynthetic (Asat) temperature responses from 108 woody species, with additional temperature parameters (35 species) and rates (250 species) of both maximum rates of electron transport (Jmax) and Rubisco carboxylation (Vcmax). We investigated how these parameters responded to mean annual temperature (MAT), temperature variability, aridity and elevation, as well as also how responses differed among successional strategy, leaf habit and light environment. KEY RESULTS: Optimum temperatures for Asat (ToptA) and Jmax (ToptJ) increased with MAT but not for Vcmax (ToptV). Although photosynthetic rates were higher for 'light' than 'shaded' leaves, light conditions did not generate differences in temperature response parameters. ToptA did not differ with successional strategy, but early successional species had ~4 °C wider thermal niches than mid/late species. Semi-deciduous species had ~1 °C higher ToptA than broadleaf evergreen species. Most global modelling efforts consider all tropical forests as a single 'broadleaf evergreen' functional type, but our data show that tropical species with different leaf habits display distinct temperature responses that should be included in modelling efforts. CONCLUSIONS: This novel research will inform modelling efforts to quantify tropical ecosystem carbon cycling and provide more accurate representations of how these key ecosystems will respond to altered temperature patterns in the face of climate warming.
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 | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".