MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971788239 · doi:10.1139/x05-069

The influence of canopy, sky condition, and solar angle on light quality in a longleaf pine woodland

2005· article· en· W1971788239 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen D. Pecot, Stephen B. Horsley, Mike A. Battaglia, Robert J. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRobert W. Woodruff FoundationWoodruff FoundationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCanopyOvercastEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesWoodlandForestryHorticultureBotanySkyBiologyGeographyMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light transmittance estimates under open, heterogeneous woodland canopies such as those of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) forests report high spatial and temporal variation in the quantity of the light environment. In addition, light quality, that is, the ratio of red to far-red light (R:FR), regulates important aspects of plant development including stem extension, specific leaf area, and seed germination. We conducted two experiments to document sources of variation in R:FR (using a LI-COR 1800 portable spectroradiometer with a cosine-corrected light sensor) in a 70- to 90-year-old natural longleaf pine woodland in southwest Georgia, USA. The first experiment compared instantaneous measurements of R:FR over a 3-day period (March) with annual estimates of canopy transmittance (using gallium arsenide phosphide photodiodes) across the range of observed overstory abundance. The second experiment examined the effect of wiregrass cover (above or below), sky condition (blue sky or overcast), and solar angle (four sampling periods between October and March) on R:FR using a multifactorial repeated measures design. We found that (1) R:FR was significantly (p < 0.0001) and strongly (R 2 = 0.72) related to annual estimates of canopy transmittance (percent photosynthetic photon flux density, %PPFD); (2) R:FR and %PPFD showed significant negative relationships with increasing overstory stocking (R 2 = 0.20, p = 0.028 for R:FR, and R 2 = 0.87, p < 0.0001 for %PPFD); and (3) R:FR decreased with increasing solar angle from maximum zenith for the study site under blue skies, was greater under overcast skies (0.84 blue sky vs. 1.18 overcast sky), and decreased under wiregrass (Aristida stricta Michx.) canopies (1.10 above vs. 0.98 below).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207