MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319062833 · doi:10.1093/treephys/28.6.825

Effects of mutual shading of tree crowns on prediction of photosynthetic light-use efficiency in a coastal Douglas-fir forest

2008· article· en· W2319062833 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Hilker, Nicholas C. Coops, Christopher R. Schwalm, Rachhpal S. Jassal, T. A. Black, P. Krishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadingPhotosynthetically active radiationCanopyEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesPrimary productionBiomass (ecology)Eddy covarianceTree (set theory)Tree canopyMeteorologyPhotosynthesisEcologyEcosystemMathematicsBotanyComputer scienceBiologyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gross primary production (GPP) is often expressed as the product of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation and the efficiency (epsilon) with which a plant community uses absorbed radiation in biomass production. Light-use efficiency is affected by environmental stresses, and varies diurnally and seasonally. Uncertainty about epsilon can be a serious limitation when modeling GPP. An important determinant of epsilon is the amount and type of solar radiation incident on a canopy, because an abundance of light can trigger a photo-protective reaction, diminishing GPP. The radiation regime in a forest canopy is determined by the predominant sky conditions and by mutual shading of tree crowns. Shading effects, producing shifts in the amount of incident direct and diffuse solar radiation, have been largely ignored, however, because they depend on forest structure and are difficult to measure. We describe a new approach for estimating changes in mutual canopy shading throughout the day and year based on a canopy structure model derived from light detection and ranging (LiDAR). Proportions of canopy shading were then combined with eddy covariance data to assess the explanatory power for variance in epsilon by regression tree analysis over half-hourly, daily and weekly time scales. The approach explained between 75 and 97% of variance in epsilon, representing an increase of between 5 and 16% compared with models driven solely by meteorological variables.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations60
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207