Low predictability of energy balance traits and leaf temperature metrics in desert, montane and alpine plant communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Leaf energy balance may influence plant performance and community composition. While biophysical theory can link leaf energy balance to many traits and environment variables, predicting leaf temperature and key driver traits with incomplete parameterizations remains challenging. Predicting thermal offsets (δ, Tleaf − Tair difference) or thermal coupling strengths (β, Tleaf vs. Tair slope) is challenging. We ask: (a) whether environmental gradients predict variation in energy balance traits (absorptance, leaf angle, stomatal distribution, maximum stomatal conductance, leaf area, leaf height); (b) whether commonly measured leaf functional traits (dry matter content, mass per area, nitrogen fraction, δ13C, height above ground) predict energy balance traits; and (c) how traits and environmental variables predict δ and β among species. We address these questions with diurnal measurements of 41 species co‐occurring along a 1,100 m elevation gradient spanning desert to alpine biomes. We show that (a) energy balance traits are only weakly associated with environmental gradients and (b) are not well predicted by common functional traits. We also show that (c) δ and β can be partially approximated using interactions among site environment and traits, with a much larger role for environment than traits. The heterogeneity in leaf temperature metrics and energy balance traits challenges larger‐scale predictive models of plant performance under environmental change. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".