Isotope constraints on water, carbon, and heat fluxes from the northern Great Plains region of North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water vapor flux facilitates the transfer of large amounts of mass and energy from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere, yet the proportions of this flux ascribed to evaporation and plant transpiration are poorly constrained. Here we used a water‐isotope mass balance approach to partition evaporation and transpiration water vapor fluxes in the northern Great Plains region of western Canada. Utilizing the proportion of gross watershed area that contributes to annual river flow, we estimated that of the mean annual precipitation (∼490 mm), ∼7% was transferred to the atmosphere via direct evaporation from water bodies and soils, whereas ∼50% was returned to the atmosphere by plant transpiration. Further, through the explicit coupling of transpiration and photosynthesis, we estimated that plant transpiration in the watersheds corresponded to an annual photosynthetic carbon flux of ∼48.9 × 10 12 g C or ∼325 g C m −2 . Although uncertainty related to this estimate of photosynthetic carbon uptake was substantial owing to the paucity of regional estimates of plant water‐use efficiency, it was similar to the flux of carbon released through soil respiration and other independent estimates of primary productivity. The water‐isotope mass balance approach in partitioning evaporation and transpiration fluxes at a regional scale was promising, although results revealed that the flux estimates would be greatly improved by longer‐term data on the isotope composition of river water, precipitation, and atmospheric moisture, as well as through detailed regional‐scale measurements of plant water‐use efficiency under various environmental and climatic conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".