MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151003140 · doi:10.1002/eco.118

Measurement and modelling of bryophyte evaporation in a boreal forest chronosequence

2010· article· en· W2151003140 on OpenAlex
Ben Bond‐Lamberty, Stith T. Gower, B. D. Amiro, B. E. Ewers

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcohydrology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBryophyteChronosequenceMossSphagnumBogEnvironmental scienceEvapotranspirationTaigaBorealLitterHydrology (agriculture)PeatEcologyAtmospheric sciencesSoil waterSoil scienceBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effects of changing climate and disturbance on forest water cycling are not well understood. In particular, bryophytes contribute significantly to forest evapotranspiration in poorly drained boreal forests, but few studies have directly measured this flux and how it changes with stand age and soil drainage. We measured bryophyte evaporation ( E ) in the field (in Canadian Picea mariana forests of varying ages and soil drainages) and under controlled laboratory conditions, and modelled daily E using site‐specific meteorological data to drive a Penman–Monteith‐based model. Field measurements of E averaged 0·37 mm day −1 and ranged from 0·03 ( Pleurozium schreberii in a 77‐year‐old dry stand) to 1·43 mm day −1 ( Sphagnum riparium in a 43‐year‐old bog). In the laboratory, moss canopy resistance (which ranged from ∼0 to 1500 s m −1 ) was constant until a moss water content of ∼6 g g −1 and then climbed sharply with further drying; unexpectedly, no difference was observed between the three moss groups (feather mosses, hollow mosses and hummock mosses) tested. Modelled annual E ranged from 0·4 mm day −1 , in the well‐drained stands, to ∼1 mm day −1 in the 43‐year‐old bog. The Penman–Monteith modelling approach used was relatively insensitive to most parameters but only explained 35% of the variability in field measurements. Bryophyte E was greater in bogs than in upland stands, was driven by low‐lying mosses and varied with stand age only in the poorly drained stands; this suggests that bryophytes may provide a buffering effect to fire‐driven changes in tree transpiration. Copyright © 2010 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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