MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of ecosystem water‐use efficiency among Douglas‐fir forest, aspen forest and grassland using eddy covariance and carbon isotope techniques

2006· article· en· W2061175526 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesBIOCAP Canada
KeywordsEddy covarianceEnvironmental scienceWater-use efficiencyEvapotranspirationEcosystemTranspirationGrasslandVapour Pressure DeficitDeciduousTerrestrial ecosystemEcologyAtmospheric sciencesAgronomyPhotosynthesisBotanyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Comparisons were made among Douglas‐fir forest, aspen (broad leaf deciduous) forest and wheatgrass (C 3 ) grassland for ecosystem‐level water‐use efficiency (WUE). WUE was defined as the ratio of photosynthetic CO 2 assimilation rate and evapotranspiration (ET) rate. The ET data measured by eddy covariance were screened so that they overwhelmingly represented transpiration. The three sites used in this comparison spanned a range of vegetation (plant functional) types and environmental conditions within western Canada. When compared in the relative order Douglas‐fir (located on Vancouver Island, BC), aspen (northern Saskatchewan), grassland (southern Alberta), the sites demonstrated a progressive decline in precipitation and a general increase in maximum air temperature and atmospheric saturation deficit ( D max ) during the mid‐summer. The average (±SD) WUE at the grassland site was 2.6±0.7 mmol mol −1 , which was much lower than the average values observed for the two other sites (aspen: 5.4±2.3, Douglas‐fir: 8.1±2.4). The differences in WUE among sites were primarily because of variation in ET. The highest maximum ET rates were approximately 5, 3.2 and 2.7 mm day −1 for the grassland, aspen and Douglas‐fir sites, respectively. There was a strong negative correlation between WUE and D max for all sites. We also made seasonal measurements of the carbon isotope ratio of ecosystem respired CO 2 ( δ R ) in order to test for the expected correlation between shifts in environmental conditions and changes to the ecosystem‐integrated ratio of leaf intercellular to ambient CO 2 concentration ( c i / c a ). There was a consistent increase in δ R values in the grassland, aspen forest and Douglas‐fir forest associated with a seasonal reduction in soil moisture. Comparisons were made between WUE measured using eddy covariance with that calculated based on D and δ R measurements. There was excellent agreement between WUE values calculated using the two techniques. Our δ R measurements indicated that c i / c a values were quite similar among the Douglas‐fir, aspen and grassland sites, despite large variation in environmental conditions among sites. This implied that the shorter‐lived grass species had relatively high c i / c a values for the D of their habitat. By contrast, the longer‐lived Douglas‐fir trees were more conservative in water‐use with lower c i / c a values relative to their habitat D . This illustrates the interaction between biological and environmental characteristics influencing ecosystem‐level WUE. The strong correlation we observed between the two independent measurements of WUE, indicates that the stable isotope composition of respired CO 2 is a useful ecosystem‐scale tool to help study constraints to photosynthesis and acclimation of ecosystems to environmental stress.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it