MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124000536 · doi:10.5194/hess-19-2513-2015

Extending periodic eddy covariance latent heat fluxes through tree sap-flow measurements to estimate long-term total evaporation in a peat swamp forest

2015· article· en· W2124000536 on OpenAlexaff
Alistair Clulow, Colin S. Everson, M. G. Mengistu, Jonathan S. Price, Alecia Nickless, Graham Jewitt

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersWater Research Commission
KeywordsEddy covarianceLatent heatEnvironmental scienceEvaporationHydrology (agriculture)Atmospheric sciencesSensible heatBowen ratioUnderstorySwampCanopyMeteorologyGeologyGeographyEcologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A combination of measurement and modelling was used to find a pragmatic solution to estimate the annual total evaporation from the rare and indigenous Nkazana Peat Swamp Forest (PSF) on the east coast of Southern Africa to improve the water balance estimates within the area. Actual total evaporation (ETa) was measured during three window periods (between 7 and 9 days each) using an eddy covariance (EC) system on a telescopic mast above the forest canopy. Sap flows of an understory tree and an emergent tree were measured using a low-maintenance heat pulse velocity system for an entire hydrological year (October 2009 to September 2010). An empirical model was derived, describing the relationship between ETa from the Nkazana PSF and sap-flow measurements. These overlapped during two of the window periods (R2 = 0.92 and 0.90), providing hourly estimates of ETa from the Nkazana PSF for a year, totalling 1125 mm (while rainfall was 650 mm). In building the empirical model, it was found that to include the understory tree sap flow provided no benefit to the model performance. In addition, the relationship between the emergent tree sap flow with ETa between the two field campaigns was consistent and could be represented by a single empirical model (R2 = 0.90; RMSE = 0.08 mm h−1). During the window periods of EC measurement, no single meteorological variable was found to describe the Nkazana PSF ETa satisfactorily. However, in terms of evaporation models, the hourly FAO Penman–Monteith reference evaporation (ETo) best described ETa during the August 2009 (R2 = 0.75), November 2009 (R2 = 0.85) and March 2010 (R2 = 0.76) field campaigns, compared to the Priestley–Taylor potential evaporation (ETp) model (R2 = 0.54, 0.74 and 0.62 during the respective field campaigns). From the extended record of ETa (derived in this study from sap flow) and ETo, a monthly crop factor (Kc) was derived for the Nkazana PSF, providing a method of estimating long-term swamp forest water-use from meteorological data. The monthly Kc indicated two distinct periods. From February to May, it was between 1.2 and 1.4 compared with June to January, when the crop factor was 0.8 to 1.0. The derived monthly Kc values were verified as accurate (to one significant digit) using historical data measured at the same site, also using EC, from a previous study. The measurements provided insights into the microclimate within a subtropical peat swamp forest and the contrasting sap flow of emergent and understory trees. They showed that expensive, high-maintenance equipment can be used during manageable window periods in conjunction with low-maintenance systems, dedicated to individual trees, to derive a model to estimate long-term ETa over remote heterogeneous forests. In addition, the contrast in annual ETa and rainfall emphasised the reliance of the Nkazana PSF on groundwater.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207