Sensitivity of a carbon and productivity model to climatic, water, terrain, and biophysical parameters in a Rocky Mountain watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Net primary productivity (NPP) is a key component of the terrestrial carbon cycle and is important in ecological, watershed, and forest management studies, and more broadly in global climate change research. Determining the relative importance and magnitude of uncertainty of NPP model inputs is important for proper carbon reporting over larger areas and time periods. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of the boreal ecosystem productivity simulator (BEPS) model in mountainous terrain using an established montane forest test site in Kananaskis, Alberta, in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Model runs were based on forest (land cover, leaf area index (LAI), biomass) and climate–water inputs (solar radiation, temperature, precipitation, humidity, soil water holding capacity) derived from digital elevation model (DEM) derivatives, climate data, geographical information system (GIS) functions, and topographically corrected satellite imagery. Four sensitivity analyses were conducted as a controlled series of experiments involving (i) NPP individual parameter sensitivity for a full growing season, (ii) NPP independent variation tests (parameter µ ± 1σ), (iii) factorial analyses to assess more complex multiple-factor interactions, and (iv) topographic correction. The results, validated against field measurements, showed that modeled NPP was sensitive to most inputs measured in the study area, with LAI and forest type the most important forest input, and solar radiation the most important climate input. Soil available water holding capacity expressed as a function of wetness index was only significant in conjunction with precipitation when both parameters represented a moisture-deficit situation. NPP uncertainty resulting from topographic influence was equivalent to 140 kg C ha−1·year−1. This suggested that topographic correction of model inputs is important for accurate NPP estimation. The BEPS model, designed originally for flat boreal forests, was shown to be applicable in mountainous terrain given appropriate image terrain corrections using the SCS+C approach. Rocky Mountain carbon dynamics were simulated with average annual NPP of Kananaskis forests estimated at 4.01 t C ha−1·year−1 and compared favourably with the field plot estimate of 4.24 t C ha−1·year−1 for this area.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".