Parameterization of photoinhibition for phytoplankton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mathematical models of photosynthesis–irradiance relationships in phytoplankton are used to compute integrated water-column photosynthetic rates and predict primary production. Models typically ignore an important phenomenon observed in most experiments: photosynthetic rate remains constant over a range of irradiances before declining due to photoinhibition. Here we develop an approach that captures both photoinhibition and this plateau. We test six new models of photoinhibition and ten more photoinhibition models from the literature against a database of 1808 photosynthesis–irradiance curves exhibiting photoinhibition. The best model improves adjusted R² by 6–37% and reduces RMSE by 15–70% compared to existing models. In the best model, photoinhibition is phenomenologically described by multiplication by a saturating function of the reciprocal of irradiance, simplifies to the widely-used Jassby & Platt photosynthesis–irradiance curve in the absence of photoinhibition, and only requires one new parameter. This photoinhibition parameter identifies the onset of photoinhibition and is the rate of decrease in photosynthetic rate at that irradiance. Simulations show that while parameter values vary up to 40% across existing models, particularly with and without photoinhibition, our representation of photoinhibition does not affect the interpretation or numerical values of parameters compared to the corresponding model without photoinhibition.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".