MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800579668 · doi:10.1029/2018gl077560

Changes in the Shadow: The Shifting Role of Shaded Leaves in Global Carbon and Water Cycles Under Climate Change

2018· article· en· W2800579668 on OpenAlexafffund
Liming He, Jing M. Chen, Alemu Gonsamo, Xiangzhong Luo, Rong Wang, Yang Liu, Ronggao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceDeciduousEvergreenClimate changeTranspirationPrimary productionAtmospheric sciencesBorealCanopyGlobal warmingGlobal changeLeaf area indexEcosystemTaigaClimatologyAgronomyEcologyForestryGeographyBotanyBiologyPhotosynthesisGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Globally shaded leaves contribute to more than a half of the total increase in gross primary production (GPP; 7.6 Pg C) for 1982–2016. During 1982–2016, the fraction of shaded GPP increases by 1.1% ( p < 0.01) in tropical forests and decreases by 1.4% ( p < 0.01) and 1.8% ( p < 0.01) in evergreen needleleaf and deciduous needleleaf boreal forests, respectively, suggesting an ecological niche of certain canopy structure for ecosystems to achieve maximum GPP. Unlike transpiration from sunlit leaves that has a turning point in the trend in 2003, global transpiration from shaded leaves steadily increased at the rate of 34 km 3 /year ( p < 0.0001) during 1982–2016. Our study therefore suggests that shaded leaves have an increasing role in buffering the adverse impact of climate change and extremes. Further studies are still needed to reduce the uncertainties in reported trends arisen from climate forcing data, leaf area index, and land cover and land change products.

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)0.001
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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations75
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207