MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Terrestrial biosphere models need better representation of vegetation phenology: results from the <scp>N</scp>orth <scp>A</scp>merican <scp>C</scp>arbon <scp>P</scp>rogram <scp>S</scp>ite <scp>S</scp>ynthesis

2011· article· en· W2106811285 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
FundersNorthern Research StationU.S. Forest ServiceOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of EnergyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhenologyEvergreenDeciduousSeasonalityEcosystemVegetation (pathology)EcologyBiosphereAtmospheric sciencesGrowing seasonEnvironmental scienceClimatologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Phenology, by controlling the seasonal activity of vegetation on the land surface, plays a fundamental role in regulating photosynthesis and other ecosystem processes, as well as competitive interactions and feedbacks to the climate system. We conducted an analysis to evaluate the representation of phenology, and the associated seasonality of ecosystem‐scale CO 2 exchange, in 14 models participating in the N orth A merican C arbon P rogram S ite S ynthesis. Model predictions were evaluated using long‐term measurements (emphasizing the period 2000–2006) from 10 forested sites within the A meri F lux and F luxnet‐ C anada networks. In deciduous forests, almost all models consistently predicted that the growing season started earlier, and ended later, than was actually observed; biases of 2 weeks or more were typical. For these sites, most models were also unable to explain more than a small fraction of the observed interannual variability in phenological transition dates. Finally, for deciduous forests, misrepresentation of the seasonal cycle resulted in over‐prediction of gross ecosystem photosynthesis by +160 ± 145 g C m −2 yr −1 during the spring transition period and +75 ± 130 g C m −2 yr −1 during the autumn transition period (13% and 8% annual productivity, respectively) compensating for the tendency of most models to under‐predict the magnitude of peak summertime photosynthetic rates. Models did a better job of predicting the seasonality of CO 2 exchange for evergreen forests. These results highlight the need for improved understanding of the environmental controls on vegetation phenology and incorporation of this knowledge into better phenological models. Existing models are unlikely to predict future responses of phenology to climate change accurately and therefore will misrepresent the seasonality and interannual variability of key biosphere–atmosphere feedbacks and interactions in coupled global climate models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.201 · 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