Effect of thinning on surface fluxes in a boreal forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thinning is a routine forest management operation that changes tree spacing, number, and size distribution and affects the material flows between vegetation and the atmosphere. Here, using direct micrometeorological ecosystem‐scale measurements, we show that in a boreal pine forest, thinning decreases the deposition velocities of fine particles as expected but does not reduce the carbon sink, water vapor flux, or ozone deposition. The thinning decreased the all‐sided leaf area index from 8 to 6, and we suggest that the redistribution of sources and sinks within the ecosystem compensated for this reduction in foliage area. In the case of water vapor and O3, changes in light penetration and among‐tree competition seem to increase individual transpiration rates and lead to larger stomatal apertures, thus enhancing also O3 deposition. In the case of CO2, increased ground vegetation assimilation and decreased autotrophic respiration seem to cancel out opposite changes in canopy assimilation and heterotrophic respiration. Current soil‐vegetation‐atmosphere transfer models should be able to reproduce these observations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".