Evaluating the use of spatially varying versus bulk average 3D vegetation structural inputs to modelled evapotranspiration within heterogeneous land cover types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Western Boreal Plain of north‐central Alberta is prone to water‐deficit conditions and is hydrologically sensitive to changes in climate, natural resource extraction and disturbance. Accurate measurement and modelling of the main components of the water balance are important for ecosystem and reclamation management; however, the lack of hydro‐meteorological instrumentation found within different land cover types makes quantification of changes to the water balance difficult over large areas. Remote sensing data can provide spatial estimates of land cover distribution and leaf area index (LAI) used as inputs into land surface models. However, land surface models can often suffer from inaccuracies as a result of spatial (coarse pixel) and temporal (discrete acquisition) resolutions, mis‐classification and inaccurate representation of LAI using remote sensing data. This study uses high‐resolution (1 m × 1 m) Light Detection and Ranging‐derived vegetation parameters (land cover type, LAI and 3D vegetation frictional influences on air movement) as inputs into the Penman–Monteith evapotranspiration (ET) model along with measured hydro‐meteorological variables. Comparison with eddy covariance (EC) measurements indicated that spatially explicit ET estimates at 1 m resolution (over a 5 km × 5 km study area) provided better estimates compared with bulk average ET estimates per land cover type. ET estimates scaled using spatially variable vegetation inputs only underestimated measured fluxes by 2% and 3% at 22·5 and 3 m EC instrumentation towers, respectively. Bulk averaged ET estimates underestimated measured ET by 5% at the 3 m tower and overestimated EC by 7% at the 22·5 m EC tower. Over coarser scales, the error associated with bulk input parameters can lead to error in overall water balance estimation. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
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 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".