Influences of vegetation structure and elevation on CO<sub>2</sub> uptake in a mature jack pine forest in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon dioxide, water vapour, and energy fluxes vary spatially and temporally within forested environments. However, it is not clear to what extent they vary as a result of variability in the spatial distribution of biomass and elevation. The following study presents a new methodology for extracting changes in the structural characteristics of vegetation and elevation within footprint areas, for direct comparison with eddy covariance (EC) CO2 flux concentrations. The purpose was to determine whether within-site canopy structure and local elevation influenced CO2 fluxes in a mature jack pine ( Pinus banksiana Lamb.) forest located in Saskatchewan, Canada. Airborne light detection and ranging (lidar) was used to extract tree height, canopy depth, foliage cover, and elevation within 30 min flux footprints. Within-footprint mean structural components and elevation were related to 30 min mean net ecosystem productivity (NEP) and gross ecosystem production (GEP). NEP and GEP were modeled using multiple regression, and when compared with measured fluxes, almost all periods showed improvements in the prediction of flux concentration when canopy structure and elevation were included. Increased biomass was related to increased NEP and GEP in June and August when the ecosystem was not limited by soil moisture. On a daily basis, fractional cover and elevation had varying but significant influences on CO2 fluxes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".