Abstract
Methods in sunfleck research commonly employ the use of experimental leaves which were constructed in homogeneous light. These experimental organs may behave unnaturally when they are challenged with fluctuating light. Photosynthetic responses to heterogeneous light and leaf macronutrient relations were determined for Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea mays leaves that were grown in homogeneous shade, heterogeneous shade, or full sun. The speed of priming where one light fleck increased the photosynthesis during a subsequent light fleck was greatest for the leaves grown in heterogeneous shade. The rate of induction and the ultimate steady-state photosynthesis were greater for the leaves that were grown in heterogeneous shade versus the leaves grown in homogeneous shade. The leaf mass per area, macronutrient concentration, and macronutrient stoichiometry were also influenced by the shade treatments. The amplitude and direction in which the three developmental light treatments influenced the response variables were not universal among the three model species. The results indicate that the historical practice of using experimental leaves which were constructed under homogeneous light to study leaf responses to fluctuating light may produce artifacts that generate dubious interpretations.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Leaves grown in heterogeneous shade had the greatest photosynthetic priming speed.
- Taxon
- Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea mays
Glycine max
Zea mays.jpg?width=60)
Cycas micronesicat0 - Treatment
- heterogeneous shadee0
- Outcome
- speed of priminge0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The speed of priming where one light fleck increased the photosynthesis during a subsequent light fleck was greatest for the leaves grown in heterogeneous shade.”
t0“Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea mays leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Heterogeneous shade produced a greater induction rate than homogeneous shade.
- Taxon
- Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea maysGlycine maxZea maysCycas micronesicat0
- Treatment
- heterogeneous shadee0
- Outcome
- rate of inductione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- homogeneous shadee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rate of induction and the ultimate steady-state photosynthesis were greater for the leaves that were grown in heterogeneous shade versus the leaves grown in homogeneous shade.”
t0“Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea mays leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Heterogeneous shade produced greater steady-state photosynthesis than homogeneous shade.
- Taxon
- Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea maysGlycine maxZea maysCycas micronesicat0
- Treatment
- heterogeneous shadee0
- Outcome
- ultimate steady-state photosynthesise0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- homogeneous shadee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rate of induction and the ultimate steady-state photosynthesis were greater for the leaves that were grown in heterogeneous shade versus the leaves grown in homogeneous shade.”
t0“Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea mays leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade treatment influenced leaf mass per area, macronutrient concentration and stoichiometry.
- Taxon
- Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea maysGlycine maxZea maysCycas micronesicat0
- Treatment
- shade treatmentse0
- Outcome
- leaf mass per area, macronutrient concentration, and macronutrient stoichiometrye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The leaf mass per area, macronutrient concentration, and macronutrient stoichiometry were also influenced by the shade treatments.”
t0“Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea mays leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
The three species differed in the amplitude and direction of responses to developmental light.
- Taxon
- Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea maysGlycine maxZea maysCycas micronesicat0
- Outcome
- amplitude and directione0
- Qualifier
- not universal among the three model speciese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The amplitude and direction in which the three developmental light treatments influenced the response variables were not universal among the three model species.”
t0“Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea mays leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Using homogeneous-light-grown leaves for fluctuating-light research may yield artifacts.
- Taxon
- Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea maysGlycine maxZea maysCycas micronesicat0
- Outcome
- artifacts that generate dubious interpretationse0
- Comparator
- homogeneous lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the historical practice of using experimental leaves which were constructed under homogeneous light to study leaf responses to fluctuating light may produce artifacts that generate dubious interpretations.”
t0“Cycas micronesica, Glycine max, and Zea mays leaves”
The same questions in other papers
shade · physiology: photosynthesis · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →shade · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
23 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.