Modeling topographic effects on net ecosystem productivity of boreal black spruce forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current regional estimates of net primary productivity (NPP) of boreal black spruce overlook the large variation in NPP caused by small-scale topographic effects on soil water, temperature and nutrient availability. Topographic effects on black spruce NPP could likely be modeled by simulating the lateral and vertical movement of water, and its effects on soil nutrient transformation and uptake, through three-dimensional watersheds defined by aspects and slopes of their topographic positions. To examine this likelihood, the ecosystem model 'ecosys' was run for 120 years on a transect that included upper- and lower-slope positions and a basin in which a basal water table was set 0.5 m below the soil surface. For the run, we used soil properties and weather conditions recorded at the 115-year-old BOREAS Southern Old Black Spruce site. Short-term model performance was tested by comparing diurnal and annual carbon (C) transfers simulated under 1994 weather conditions during the 115th year of the model run with those measured at this site during 1994 by eddy covariance, surface chambers and allometry. After 115 years, annual spruce NPP simulated at the upper-slope positions was twice that at the basin (350 versus 170 g C m-2), whereas accumulated wood C was almost three times as large (6.8 versus 2.4 kg C m-2). In the model, increases in NPP and wood growth in upper-slope positions were caused by lower soil water contents, higher soil temperatures, and more rapid O2 uptake that accelerated heterotrophic respiration and hence nutrient mineralization and uptake. Modeled differences in wood growth with topographic position were quantitatively consistent with measurements of boreal black spruce at several research sites differing in water table depth. Modeled differences also agreed with differences in wood growth rates derived from allometric measurements at boreal black spruce sites differing in productivity indices as a result of differences in subsurface hydrology. The magnitude of these differences clearly indicates the importance of accounting for subsurface hydrology in regional estimates of boreal forest productivity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".