MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and respiration using a light response curve approach: critical issues and global evaluation

2009· article· en· W2123095840 on OpenAlexafffund
Gitta Lasslop, Markus Reichstein, Dario Papale, Andrew D. Richardson, Almut Arneth, Alan Barr, Paul C. Stoy, Georg Wohlfahrt

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of ScienceAustrian Science FundCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPrimary productionDaytimeAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceEcosystemEcosystem respirationRespirationVapour Pressure DeficitData assimilationStatisticsPhotosynthesisMathematicsMeteorologyEcologyPhysicsChemistryBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The measured net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO 2 between the ecosystem and the atmosphere reflects the balance between gross CO 2 assimilation [gross primary production (GPP)] and ecosystem respiration (R eco ). For understanding the mechanistic responses of ecosystem processes to environmental change it is important to separate these two flux components. Two approaches are conventionally used: (1) respiration measurements made at night are extrapolated to the daytime or (2) light–response curves are fit to daytime NEE measurements and respiration is estimated from the intercept of the ordinate, which avoids the use of potentially problematic nighttime data. We demonstrate that this approach is subject to biases if the effect of vapor pressure deficit (VPD) modifying the light response is not included. We introduce an algorithm for NEE partitioning that uses a hyperbolic light response curve fit to daytime NEE, modified to account for the temperature sensitivity of respiration and the VPD limitation of photosynthesis. Including the VPD dependency strongly improved the model's ability to reproduce the asymmetric diurnal cycle during periods with high VPD, and enhances the reliability of R eco estimates given that the reduction of GPP by VPD may be otherwise incorrectly attributed to higher R eco . Results from this improved algorithm are compared against estimates based on the conventional nighttime approach. The comparison demonstrates that the uncertainty arising from systematic errors dominates the overall uncertainty of annual sums (median absolute deviation of GPP: 47 g C m −2 yr −1 ), while errors arising from the random error (median absolute deviation: ∼2 g C m −2 yr −1 ) are negligible. Despite site‐specific differences between the methods, overall patterns remain robust, adding confidence to statistical studies based on the FLUXNET database. In particular, we show that the strong correlation between GPP and R eco is not spurious but holds true when quasi‐independent, i.e. daytime and nighttime based estimates are compared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,198
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207