Varying Contributions of Drivers to the Relationship Between Canopy Photosynthesis and Far‐Red Sun‐Induced Fluorescence for Two Maize Sites at Different Temporal Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sun‐induced fluorescence (SIF) has been found to be strongly correlated with gross primary production (GPP) in a quasi‐linear pattern at the scales beyond leaves. However, the causes of the GPP:SIF relationship deviating from a linear pattern remain unclear. In the current study conducted at two maize sites in Nebraska in 2017 summer growing season, we investigated the relationship between GPP and SIF at 760 nm (F 760 ) at two temporal scales and quantified the contributions of incoming photosynthetically active radiation (PAR in ), fraction of absorbed PAR (fPAR), light use efficiency (LUE), and F 760 yield (F 760,y , defined as F 760 /(PAR in ×fPAR)) to GPP and F 760 variabilities to further understand the linearity and deviations in the GPP:F 760 relationship. We found the following: (1) For individual growth stages when canopy structure and chlorophyll content were stable, GPP and F 760 were strongly controlled by PAR in , while LUE and F 760,y had much lower contributions to the GPP:F 760 relationship; during this period, LUE and F 760,y had either a slightly negative or no clear relationship, which explained some deviations in the GPP:SIF relationship. (2) At the seasonal scale, the contribution of LUE to GPP variability as well as the contribution of F 760,y to F 760 variability increased and was comparable to the contribution of PAR in ; the LUE:F 760,y relationship showed a strong linear relationship, which strengthened the linear GPP:F 760 relationship. Both maize sites showed similar patterns. A framework was applied to estimate LUE at individual stages and as a result, significantly improved the GPP estimation, thus enhancing the SIF potential for inferring photosynthesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".