Comparing rainfall interception in plantation trials of six tropical hardwood trees and wild sugar cane <i>Saccharum spontaneum</i> L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Native hardwood trees are frequently planted to restore forest cover to abandoned agricultural lands in the Neotropics. Few studies compare rainfall interception in such plantations and the vegetation the trees are planted to replace. We compared throughfall ( TF ) and stemflow ( SF ) in a mature stand of wild sugar cane Saccharum spontaneum L. and six tropical hardwoods growing in a restoration trial in the Republic of Panama. Interception in trees was dominated by TF , with SF accounting for less than 3% of gross rainfall ( Pg ). By contrast, SF was a dominant means by which rainfall reached the ground in S. spontaneum , and this dominance became greater at higher Pg . Slopes of Pg/SF regressions were considerably steeper in S. spontaneum than among tree plots. We tentatively concluded that trees intercept more rainfall than S. spontaneum . However, median total I was negative in S. spontaneum when SF was estimated using the median and the median plus maximum absolute deviation of stem densities as a multiplier. Sources of potential bias in S. spontaneum measurements include overestimation of stem density, high inter‐event variability of water volumes in individual SF collectors, and contact between stems diverting SF s. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to compare I in restoration plantings of tropical hardwoods and in S. spontaneum . It is also only the second study to quantify TF and SF in a sugar cane, likely due to the methodological difficulties involved in retrieving reliable estimates of these variables in very dense grass stands. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".