Modeling the Response of Canopy Stomatal Conductance to Humidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Humidity of air is a key environmental variable in controlling the stomatal conductance (g) of plant leaves. The stomatal conductance–humidity relationships employed in the Ball–Woodrow–Berry (BWB) model and the Leuning model have been widely used in the last decade. Results of independent evaluations of the two models vary greatly. In this study, the authors develop a new diagnostic parameter that is based on canopy water vapor and CO2 fluxes to assess the response of canopy g to humidity. Using eddy-covariance flux measurements at three boreal forest sites in Canada, they critically examine the performance of the BWB and the Leuning models. The results show that the BWB model, which employs a linear relationship between g and relative humidity (hs), leads to large underestimates of g when the air is wet. The Leuning model, which employs a nonlinear function of water vapor pressure deficit (Ds), reduced this bias, but it still could not adequately capture the significant increase of g under the wet conditions. New models are proposed to improve the prediction of canopy g to humidity. The best performance was obtained by the model that employs a power function of Ds, followed by the model that employs a power function of relative humidity deficit (1 − hs). The results also indicate that models based on water vapor pressure deficit generally performed better than those based on relative humidity. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the stomatal aperture responds to leaf water loss because water vapor pressure deficit rather than relative humidity directly affects the transpiration rate of canopy leaves.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".