Calibration and assessment of seasonal changes in leaf area index of a tropical dry forest in different stages of succession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple measure of the amount of foliage present in a forest is leaf area index (LAI; the amount of foliage per unit ground surface area), which can be determined by optical estimation (gap fraction method) with an instrument such as the Li-Cor LAI-2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer. However, optical instruments such as the LAI-2000 cannot directly differentiate between foliage and woody components of the canopy. Studies investigating LAI and its calibration (extracting foliar LAI from optical estimates) in tropical forests are rare. We calibrated optical estimates of LAI from the LAI-2000 with leaf litter data for a tropical dry forest. We also developed a robust method for determining LAI from leaf litter data in a tropical dry forest environment. We found that, depending on the successional stage of the canopy and the season, the LAI-2000 may underestimate LAI by 17% to over 40%. In the dry season, the instrument overestimated LAI by the contribution of the woody area index. Examination of the seasonal variation in LAI for three successional stages in a tropical dry forest indicated differences in timing of leaf fall according to successional stage and functional group (i.e., lianas and trees). We conclude that when calculating LAI from optical estimates, it is necessary to account for the differences between values obtained from optical and semi-direct techniques. In addition, to calculate LAI from litter collected in traps, specific leaf area must be calculated for each species rather than from a mean value for multiple species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".