A temperature-dependent tradeoff

The Temperature Where Grass Changes Its Mind

Warm a C3 leaf and its carbon gain per absorbed photon falls while C4 stays nearly level. The C4 line here is not measured: it is held at the value this model's own C3 equation gives at 22 °C and 340 ppm CO2, so that crossing is the calibration rather than a result. A real C3 and C4 grass pair measured at that CO2 crosses at 22 to 25 °C of leaf temperature (Monson et al. 1982). Lower CO2 moves the model boundary cooler. Physiology predicts a boundary, but fire, water and history decide what occupies it.

Drag the leaf across the crossing. Before it, the C3 route buys more carbon with a photon. After it, the C4 route does. The bend is not drawn: every point is recalculated from the temperature response of photorespiration.

mol CO2 per absorbed photon
activate to jump between the endpoints

C3 yield now

calculating

photorespiration ratio

C4 reference

calculating

constant calibration

Advantage

calculating

at selected temperature

At the historical 340 ppm reference, move through 22 °C.

Pull toward a glacial 180 to 200 ppm and watch the crossing move left.

Rubisco admits two gases to the same active site. Its specificity for CO2 over O2 falls as temperature rises, while dissolved CO2 also loses ground to O2. This is a chemical tradeoff, not a mistake. The model tracks it through Γ*, the CO2 compensation point without mitochondrial respiration.

Γ*(T) = 42.75 × exp[(37,830 / R) × (1 / 298.15 − 1 / T)] ppm
Sr(T) = 210,000 / [2Γ*(T)]
φ = O2 / [Sr(T) × CO2] = 2Γ*(T) / CO2
ΦC3 = 0.08 × (1 − φ/2) / (1 + φ)

The numerator removes carbon returned by oxygenation. The denominator counts the extra photochemistry needed when oxygenation diverts the cycle. The C4 line represents a CO2-concentrating pump that keeps Rubisco away from this ambient ratio. It is held level at the value produced by the C3 equation at 22 °C and 340 ppm. That is a declared calibration, not an independently fitted universal constant, and it has a consequence worth stating flatly: this model crossing at 22 °C at 340 ppm is arithmetic, not evidence. It was put there. What the model earns is the shape of the response, how the crossing moves when you change CO2, and not the anchor itself.

The anchor is Monson, Littlejohn and Williams (1982), who measured equal quantum yields in a real C3 and C4 grass pair at 22 to 25 °C of leaf temperature in 21% O2 and 340 ppm CO2. Those are this model's own conditions and its own kind of temperature. Collatz, Berry and Clark's better-known 22 °C is not the right anchor for this axis: it is a mean warmest-month air temperature at 35 Pa, which is 350 ppm at a 100 kPa reference, and it appears further down where it belongs, in the climate paragraph.

The boundary is a function, not a latitude

Now use the CO2 slider. The crossing is the root of ΦC3(T,pCO2) − ΦC4 = 0, found afresh by bisection. Less CO2 raises the oxygenation-to-carboxylation ratio at every temperature, so the same equality arrives in cooler air.

The 22 °C crossing is this model's calibrated value at 340 ppm, not a constant carried by every leaf and not something this page discovered. Published crossings do span a range, and here are the two that name their conditions. Monson, Littlejohn and Williams measured Agropyron smithii (C3) against Bouteloua gracilis (C4) in 21% O2 and 340 ppm CO2 and found their quantum yields approximately equal at leaf temperatures between 22 and 25 °C. Fox and colleagues modelled 14, 20 and 24 °C of leaf temperature at 280, 405 and 560 ppmV. Species, C4 subtype and measurement conditions move the equality within that spread.

A deliberately small climate stencil

If a site has a 28 °C warmest-month mean at sea level and cools at 6.5 °C per kilometre, the selected CO2 crossing maps to this elevation. This is a toy conversion, not a vegetation observation.

calculating

Collatz, Berry and Clark used the physiological crossover with climate fields and found that a warmest-month mean near 22 °C at 35 Pa pCO2 separated much of the observed C3 and C4 grass abundance. That makes the enzyme model a strong first-order predictor. It does not make a temperature isotherm a sufficient explanation for a grassland.

The direction also appears in altitude and glacial records, with an important correction. A Colombian Andes reconstruction linked Pleistocene C3 and C4 shifts at 2,550 m to temperature and CO2. North American data since the Last Glacial Maximum found low CO2 favoured C4 where cooling was modest, but colder regions still shifted toward C3. A lower crossover is a conditional advantage, not evidence for one global glacial expansion.

Origin is not expansion

The neat story says falling CO2 made C4 grasslands. The chronology refuses to be that neat, but not because C4 arose before the fall. The earliest grass C4 origins sit in the Oligocene CO2 decline.

The pathway was not a one-off invention. A 2011 synthesis recognized 62 independent C4 lineages across flowering plants, while dating the grassland story still requires separating origins from expansion.

about 30 million years ago

Origins

Early Oligocene grass lineages acquire C4 photosynthesis. Low CO2, heat, aridity and water limitation make photorespiration costly enough for concentrating mechanisms to pay.

about 5 to 10 million years ago

Ecological expansion

Late Miocene C4 grasslands spread after a lag near 20 million years. Seasonal drought, open habitat and fire feedbacks help explain why biochemical possibility waited so long to become dominance.

The CO2-controlled crossover still has predictive teeth. It says which pathway has the photon economy to compete. Rainfall, nitrogen, fire, herbivory and land use decide whether that advantage becomes a landscape.

The check

Observed dataEhleringer and Bjorkman measured leaves. Their means and approximate plotted endpoints are listed without being relabelled as model output.
Diagnostic inferenceThe rising φ follows from Bernacchi's measured temperature response for Γ* and the Rubisco specificity identity.
Model outputThe curves, roots and altitude stencil are recomputed locally. The C4 level and the toy lapse rate are free choices named here.
checkobservedlive model
C3, 10 °C, 21% O2about 0.070calculating
C3, 30 °C, 21% O20.0524 ± 0.0014calculating
C3, 40 °C, 21% O2about 0.040calculating
C4, 30 °C, 21% O20.0534 ± 0.0009calculating
C4 grasses by subtype, 30 °C, 21% O20.060 NAD-ME, 0.064 PCK, 0.065 NADP-MEcalculating
C3, 30 °C, 2% O20.0733 ± 0.0008not modelled
C4, 30 °C, 2% O20.0538 ± 0.0011not modelled

calculating

Every assumption and uncertainty
  • Atmosphere stands in for the fixation site. The control feeds atmospheric pCO2 directly into the quantum-yield correction. Real chloroplast CO2 depends on stomatal and mesophyll conductance. Folding that into a single prescribed fraction would add another free choice.
  • The C3 equation is a diagnostic leaf model. Intrinsic quantum yield is fixed at 0.08. It omits respiration, acclimation, species differences, water stress and nitrogen limitation.
  • The C4 line is calibrated, so the 22 °C is not a finding. Its live value is set by the C3 equation at 22 °C and 340 ppm. The crossover routine therefore returns 22 °C at 340 ppm by construction, and no arrangement of the other constants could make it return anything else. The anchor is Monson et al.'s measured 22 to 25 °C leaf crossing at the same CO2 and O2. What the page tests is the CO2 response around that anchor, not the anchor.
  • The calibrated C4 value is not the measured C4 mean, and the gap is large. The ledger prints both and prints the difference in units of the measurement's own standard deviation. Ehleringer and Bjorkman's 0.0534 ± 0.0009 is one 1977 species set and sits at the bottom of the C4 range; Ehleringer and Pearcy's 1983 survey puts C4 grass subtype means at 0.060 (NAD-ME), 0.064 (PCK) and 0.065 (NADP-ME). For a page about grasses the calibrated value falls between the two, which is a defence and not an excuse.
  • Temperature meanings are being bridged, but only in the climate stencil. The curve control says leaf / air because the biochemical response is a leaf-temperature calculation while the Collatz boundary further down is a warmest-month mean air-temperature model. Those temperatures are not interchangeable in a real canopy. The 22 °C anchor itself needs no such bridge, because Monson measured a leaf temperature.
  • The altitude readout is only a stencil. Its sea-level temperature and lapse rate are declared choices. Actual lapse rates, pressure, humidity and growing seasons vary.
  • The boundary is necessary, not sufficient. The model predicts comparative photon economy. It does not predict rainfall, fire, grazing, nutrients, dispersal or land use.

Independent reproduction: node research/rubisco-crossover/verify-rubisco-crossover.mjs.