MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307258732 · doi:10.25675/3.018384

Forest respiration from eddy covariance and chamber measurements under high turbulence and a bark beetle epidemic

2007· article· en· W2307258732 on OpenAlexfundno aff
H. N. Speckman

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Collections of Colorado (Colorado State University) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationRocky Mountain Research StationMcMaster University
KeywordsEddy covarianceBark beetleRespirationTurbulenceEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesBark (sound)CovarianceMeteorologyMathematicsBotanyBiologyGeographyPhysicsForestryEcologyEcosystemStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eddy covariance (EC) enables continuous estimates of carbon, water, and energy fluxes, and a global network of >500 sites (www.fluxnet.ornl.gov) has resulted in major advances in understanding ecosystem-scale biogeochemical cycling. However, long-term sums of net ecosystem exchange, photosynthesis and respiration fluxes have uncertainties because of potential measurement biases in respiration fluxes at night. Many studies have demonstrated that EC estimations of flux during the night are lower than chamber measurements--with low turbulence at night potentially causing the difference. A bark beetle outbreak at the GLEES Ameriflux site provided a unique opportunity to compare chamber and EC estimates of ecosystem respiration (R) under conditions of high turbulence (summer night mean u* = 0.7 m s-1) and 85% mortality of the aboveground respiring biomass due to a bark beetle epidemic. Chamber-based estimates of R were developed from periodic foliage, wood and soil CO2 efflux measurements fit to models of phenological seasonal change and diurnal temperature response. These models estimated ecosystem mean nightly respiration to have declined 32% after the bark beetle epidemic (7.0 ±0.22 μmol m-2 s-1 in 2005 to 4.8 ±0.16 μmol m-2 s-1 in 2011). The decrease was entirely due to the loss of aboveground respiration, soil efflux remained constant throughout the epidemic. Unlike chamber estimates, nighttime EC measurements did not decline after 85% of the forest basal area had been infested or killed by bark beetles, mean nighttime NEE of 3.0 μmol m-2 s-1 for 2005 and 2011. These EC values were significantly lower than chamber estimates of respiration for the same time periods (58% lower in 2005, and 34% in 2011). Despite the large difference in values, the two estimates of R were correlated (yearly r2 ranging from 0.18-0.60). This study suggests that the traditional discrepancy of nighttime EC and chamber estimates of ecosystem respiration are not caused by insufficient turbulence (results proved robust to extreme u* filter > 0.7 m s-1). Other sources of error are investigated for both techniques. To further explore this discrepancy, we suggest the installation of a second EC system below the canopy to improve understanding of air flows and fluxes throughout the ecosystem. This discrepancy must be resolved before scientific confidence can be attained in the true value of ecosystem carbon flux.

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 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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Collections of Colorado (Colorado State University)Same topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207