Increased leaf reflectance in tropical trees under elevated CO<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Globally increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are known to affect many aspects of plant physiology and development; however, little attention has been given to leaf and canopy optical properties. Three tropical trees in the Leguminosae, an important canopy tree family in many tropical forests, responded similarly to an experimental doubling of CO2 partial pressure with a 9–23% increase in spectral leaf reflectance to light in the visible (400–700 nm) waveband. Decreased leaf chlorophyll content under elevated CO2 may explain part of the observed increase in reflectance. However, analyses that statistically corrected for chlorophyll content effects on reflectance still indicated a significant CO2 effect. This results, in conjunction with the spectral pattern of the response, suggests that the primary mechanism is increased optical masking of chlorophyll under elevated CO2. The magnitude of the increase in leaf reflectance is sufficient to suggest that increased canopy reflectance of tropical forests (and possibly other terrestrial ecosystems) may be an important negative feedback in the response of global net radiative climate forcing to increasing atmospheric CO2.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".