MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172841134 · doi:10.1002/wat2.1125

Modeling plant–water interactions: an ecohydrological overview from the cell to the global scale

2015· article· en· W2172841134 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersStavros Niarchos Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBiosphereVegetation (pathology)Temporal scalesWater cycleWatershedBiosphere modelHydrology (agriculture)Carbon cycleEcologyComputer scienceEcosystemGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vegetation and the water cycles are inherently coupled across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Water availability interacts with plant ecophysiology and controls vegetation functioning. Concurrently, vegetation has direct and indirect effects on energy, water, carbon, and nutrient cycles. To better understand and model plant–water interactions, highly interdisciplinary approaches are required. We present an overview of the main processes and relevant interactions between water and plants across a range of spatial scales, from the cell level of leaves, where stomatal controls occur, to drought stress at the level of a single tree, to the integrating scales of a watershed, region, and the globe. A review of process representations in models at different scales is presented. More specifically, three main model families are identified: (1) models of plant hydraulics that mechanistically simulate stomatal controls and/or water transport at the tree level; (2) ecohydrological models that simulate plot‐ to catchment‐scale water, energy, and carbon fluxes; and (3) terrestrial biosphere models that simulate carbon, water, and nutrient dynamics at the regional and global scales and address feedback between Earth's vegetation and the climate system. We identify special features and similarities across the model families. Examples of where plant–water interactions are especially important and have led to key scientific findings are also highlighted. Finally, we discuss the various data sources that are currently available to force and validate existing models, and we present perspectives on the evolution of the field. WIREs Water 2016, 3:327–368. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1125 This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems Science of Water > Hydrological Processes

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.008

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.244 · 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