Energy and water vapour exchanges over a mixedwood boreal forest in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measurements of energy, carbon dioxide and water vapour fluxes and supporting meteorological variables were made from 1 September 2003 to 31 August 2004 in a 74‐year‐old mixedwood forest in northern Ontario, Canada, using the eddy covariance technique. Land surface cover data analysis showed that although this forest is comprised of deciduous and coniferous species, their proportion throughout the forest was almost equal, resulting in a homogeneously mixedwood stand. The seasonal pattern of albedo showed a distinct pattern as a result of mixed deciduous and coniferous species with the first low radiation reflection period in early spring (between snowmelt and deciduous leaf‐out), and the second low reflection period in late autumn (between senescence and snowfall). Root zone soil water content remained above 0·32 throughout the growing season, which is characteristic of wet soil conditions. The evaporative flux exceeded the sensible heat flux during most of the growing season. Daily mean evapotranspiration values during the peak growing season were about 2–2·5 mm day −1 with maximum values reaching up to 4–5 mm day −1 on sunny days. The total water loss over the 12‐month measurement period was 480 ± 30 mm, while the total precipitation was 835 mm. Despite high soil water content, bulk surface conductance calculated using the inverted Penman–Monteith formulation, showed a strong correlation with vapour pressure deficit (VPD), indicating stomatal control on water loss during the afternoons with high atmospheric demand and during occasional dry periods. Bulk surface conductance values in this mixedwood forest were relatively higher than those in other boreal coniferous forests and were more similar to values observed in the southern boreal deciduous forests. The Priestley–Taylor α values showed a wide range but during most of the growing season its values were close to unity, indicating that water stress does not play a major role in the overall water loss from this boreal forest ecosystem, while energy supply has a strong control on evapotranspiration. These results will help parameterize accurately energy and water exchanges for the moist mixedwood forests in land surface‐atmosphere interaction and hydrologic models. Copyright © 2006 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
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, 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".