Latent heat exchange in the boreal and arctic biomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study latent heat flux (λE) measurements made at 65 boreal and arctic eddy-covariance (EC) sites were analyses by using the Penman-Monteith equation. Sites were stratified into nine different ecosystem types: harvested and burnt forest areas, pine forests, spruce or fir forests, Douglas-fir forests, broadleaf deciduous forests, larch forests, wetlands, tundra and natural grasslands. The Penman-Monteith equation was calibrated with variable surface resistances against half-hourly eddy-covariance data and clear differences between ecosystem types were observed. Based on the modeled behavior of surface and aerodynamic resistances, surface resistance tightly control λE in most mature forests, while it had less importance in ecosystems having shorter vegetation like young or recently harvested forests, grasslands, wetlands and tundra. The parameters of the Penman-Monteith equation were clearly different for winter and summer conditions, indicating that phenological effects on surface resistance are important. We also compared the simulated λE of different ecosystem types under meteorological conditions at one site. Values of λE varied between 15% and 38% of the net radiation in the simulations with mean ecosystem parameters. In general, the simulations suggest that λE is higher from forested ecosystems than from grasslands, wetlands or tundra-type ecosystems. Forests showed usually a tighter stomatal control of λE as indicated by a pronounced sensitivity of surface resistance to atmospheric vapor pressure deficit. Nevertheless, the surface resistance of forests was lower than for open vegetation types including wetlands. Tundra and wetlands had higher surface resistances, which were less sensitive to vapor pressure deficits. The results indicate that the variation in surface resistance within and between different vegetation types might play a significant role in energy exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and atmosphere. These results suggest the need to take into account vegetation type and phenology in energy exchange modeling.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".