MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002553555 · doi:10.1029/2019gb006349

Tidal Wetland Gross Primary Production Across the Continental United States, 2000–2019

2020· article· en· W3002553555 on OpenAlexaff
Rusty A. Feagin, Inke Forbrich, Thomas P. Huff, Jordan G. Barr, Jesus Ruiz‐Plancarte, José D. Fuentes, Raymond G. Najjar, Rodrigo Vargas, Alma Vázquez‐Lule, Lisamarie Windham‐Myers, Kevin D. Kroeger, Eric J. Ward, Georgianne W. Moore, Monique Y. Leclerc, Ken W. Krauss, Camille L. Stagg, Merryl Alber, Sara Knox, K. V. Schäfer, Thomas S. Bianchi, Jack Hutchings, Hafsah Nahrawi, Asko Noormets, Bhaskar Mitra, Aline Jaimes, Audra Hinson, Brian A. Bergamaschi, John S. King, Guofang Miao

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWetlandPrimary productionEddy covarianceEnvironmental scienceModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerCarbon cycleHydrology (agriculture)GeologyEcosystemEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We mapped tidal wetland gross primary production (GPP) with unprecedented detail for multiple wetland types across the continental United States (CONUS) at 16‐day intervals for the years 2000–2019. To accomplish this task, we developed the spatially explicit Blue Carbon (BC) model, which combined tidal wetland cover and field‐based eddy covariance tower data into a single Bayesian framework, and used a super computer network and remote sensing imagery (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Enhanced Vegetation Index). We found a strong fit between the BC model and eddy covariance data from 10 different towers ( r 2 = 0.83, p < 0.001, root‐mean‐square error = 1.22 g C/m 2 /day, average error was 7% with a mean bias of nearly zero). When compared with NASA's MOD17 GPP product, which uses a generalized terrestrial algorithm, the BC model reduced error by approximately half (MOD17 had r 2 = 0.45, p < 0.001, root‐mean‐square error of 3.38 g C/m 2 /day, average error of 15%). The BC model also included mixed pixels in areas not covered by MOD17, which comprised approximately 16.8% of CONUS tidal wetland GPP. Results showed that across CONUS between 2000 and 2019, the average daily GPP per m 2 was 4.32 ± 2.45 g C/m 2 /day. The total annual GPP for the CONUS was 39.65 ± 0.89 Tg C/year. GPP for the Gulf Coast was nearly double that of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts combined. Louisiana alone accounted for 15.78 ± 0.75 Tg C/year, with its Atchafalaya/Vermillion Bay basin at 4.72 ± 0.14 Tg C/year. The BC model provides a robust platform for integrating data from disparate sources and exploring regional trends in GPP across tidal wetlands.

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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations56
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biogeochemical CyclesSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207