Evaluation of Multiple Spring Phenological Indicators of Yearly GPP and NEP at Three Canadian Forest Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenological shifts in events such as flowering and bud break are important indicators of ecosystem processes, and are therefore of particular significance for carbon (C) cycle research. Using long-term flux data from three contrasting plant functional type (evergreen and deciduous) boreal forest sites, we evaluated and compared the responses of annual C fluxes to multiple spring phenological indicators, including the C-uptake period onset (CUP onset), spring temperature (average value from March to May), and satellite-derived enhanced vegetation index (EVI) (average value from March to May). We found that the CUP onset was negatively correlated with annual gross primary production (GPP) for all three sites, but that its predictive strength for annual net ecosystem production (NEP) differed substantially among plant functional types. Spring temperature demonstrated particularly good potential for predicting both annual GPP and NEP for the evergreen sites, but not for the deciduous site. Spring EVI was demonstrated to have potential for predicting annual NEP for all sites. However, both plant functional types confounded the correlation of annual NEP with annual GPP. Although none of these phenological indicators provided consistent insight into annual C fluxes, using various currently available datasets our results remain potentially useful for the assessment of forest C cycling with future climate change. Previous analyses using only a single phenological metric should be considered with caution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".