Strong controls of daily minimum temperature on the autumn photosynthetic phenology of subtropical vegetation in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Vegetation phenology research has largely focused on temperate deciduous forests, thus limiting our understanding of the response of evergreen vegetation to climate change in tropical and subtropical regions. Results Using satellite solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) and MODIS enhanced vegetation index (EVI) data, we applied two methods to evaluate temporal and spatial patterns of the end of the growing season (EGS) in subtropical vegetation in China, and analyze the dependence of EGS on preseason maximum and minimum temperatures as well as cumulative precipitation. Our results indicated that the averaged EGS derived from the SIF and EVI based on the two methods (dynamic threshold method and derivative method) was later than that derived from gross primary productivity (GPP) based on the eddy covariance technique, and the time-lag for EGS sif and EGS evi was approximately 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively. We found that EGS was positively correlated with preseason minimum temperature and cumulative precipitation (accounting for more than 73% and 62% of the study areas, respectively), but negatively correlated with preseason maximum temperature (accounting for more than 59% of the study areas). In addition, EGS was more sensitive to the changes in the preseason minimum temperature than to other climatic factors, and an increase in the preseason minimum temperature significantly delayed the EGS in evergreen forests, shrub and grassland. Conclusions Our results indicated that the SIF outperformed traditional vegetation indices in capturing the autumn photosynthetic phenology of evergreen forest in the subtropical region of China. We found that minimum temperature plays a significant role in determining autumn photosynthetic phenology in the study region. These findings contribute to improving our understanding of the response of the EGS to climate change in subtropical vegetation of China, and provide a new perspective for accurately evaluating the role played by evergreen vegetation in the regional carbon budget.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".