Spatial Scaling of Gross Primary Productivity Over Sixteen Mountainous Watersheds Using Vegetation Heterogeneity and Surface Topography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Land surface models intended for large‐scale applications are often executed at coarse resolutions, and the sub‐grid heterogeneity is usually ignored. Here, a spatial scaling algorithm that integrates the information of vegetation heterogeneity (land cover type and leaf area index) and surface topography (elevation, slope, relative azimuth (Raz) between the sun and the slope background, sky‐view factor, and topographic wetness index), was proposed to correct errors in gross primary productivity (GPP) estimates at a coarse spatial resolution. An eco‐hydrological model named BEPS‐TerrainLab was used to simulate GPP at 30 and 480 m resolutions for 16 mountainous watersheds selected globally. Results showed that an obvious improvement on GPP estimates at 480 m resolution was achieved after the correction in comparison with GPP modeled at 30 m resolution, with the determination coefficient increased by 0.38 and mean bias error reduced by 203gCm −2 yr −1 . The combination of all the seven factors made the largest improvement for GPP estimation at 480 m resolution, suggesting that a larger improvement would be achieved when more factors of surface heterogeneity are considered. More specifically, our results indicated that five factors, including land cover type and leaf area index regarded as integrated outcomes of all the environmental conditions, Raz and sky‐view factor associated with radiation redistribution, and slope related to soil water redistribution, were especially important in the spatial scaling procedure. This study suggests that incorporating the information of surface heterogeneity into the spatial scaling algorithm is useful for improving coarse resolution GPP estimates over mountainous areas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".