MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3129662149 · doi:10.5194/hessd-8-5301-2011

The potential of observed soil moisture dynamics for predicting summer evapotranspiration in a successional chronosequence

2011· article· en· W3129662149 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
José Agustín Breña Naranjo, Markus Weiler, Kerstin Stahl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsEvapotranspirationChronosequenceEnvironmental scienceEcological successionEddy covarianceWater balanceWater contentFluxNetHydrology (agriculture)EcosystemEcohydrologyForest ecologyPrecipitationSoil waterAtmospheric sciencesEcologySoil scienceGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The hydrology of ecosystem succession gives rise to new challenges for the analysis and modeling of water balance components. Recent large-scale alterations of forest cover across the globe suggest that a significant portion of new biophysical environments will influence the long-term dynamics and limits of water fluxes compared to pre-succession conditions. This study explores the potential of modeling actual evapotranspiration (AET) in the summer along a successional forest by observed soil moisture dynamics. We applied two parsimonious data-driven soil water balance models to the Canadian FLUXNET sites at Campbell River, British Columbia. Simulated AET was compared to water vapor measurements from 2001 to 2008 and the models' sensitivity to inter-annual climatic variability and computation time step was tested. With the exception of the mature forest during an extremely dry summer, the results confirm the potential of using observed soil moisture dynamics as a method to estimate summer AET within an acceptable error range albeit substantial differences along the successional forested ecosystem. The study suggests that summer AET could be estimated and monitored in many more places than those equipped with eddy-covariance or sap-flow measurements to advance the understanding of the water balance of different successional ecosystems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→