Amazon rain forest subcanopy flow and the carbon budget: Santarém LBA‐ECO site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horizontal and vertical CO2 fluxes and gradients were made in an Amazon tropical rain forest, the Tapajós National Forest Reserve (FLONA‐Tapajós: 54°58′W, 2°51′S). Two observational campaigns in 2003 and 2004 were conducted to describe subcanopy flows, clarify their relationship to winds above the forest, and estimate how they may transport CO2 horizontally. It is now recognized that subcanopy transport of respired CO2 is missed by budgets that rely only on single point eddy covariance measurements, with the error being most important under nocturnal calm conditions. We tested the hypothesis that horizontal mean transport, not previously measured in tropical forests, may account for the missing CO2 in such conditions. A subcanopy network of wind and CO2 sensors was installed. Significant horizontal transport of CO2 was observed in the lowest 10 m of the canopy. Results indicate that CO2 advection accounted for 73% and 71%, respectively, of the carbon budget for all calm nights evaluated during dry and wet periods. We found that horizontal advection is likely important to the canopy CO2 budget even for conditions with the above‐canopy friction velocity higher than commonly used thresholds.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".