Evaluation of Clumping Effects on the Estimation of Global Terrestrial Evapotranspiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In terrestrial ecosystems, leaves are aggregated into different spatial structures and their spatial distribution is non-random. Clumping index (CI) is a key canopy structural parameter, characterizing the extent to which leaf deviates from the random distribution. To assess leaf clumping effects on global terrestrial ET, we used a global leaf area index (LAI) map and the latest version of global CI product derived from MODIS BRDF data as well as the Boreal Ecosystem Productivity Simulator (BEPS) to estimate global terrestrial ET. The results show that global terrestrial ET in 2015 was 511.9 ± 70.1 mm yr−1 for Case I, where the true LAI and CI are used. Compared to this baseline case, (1) global terrestrial ET is overestimated by 4.7% for Case II where true LAI is used ignoring clumping; (2) global terrestrial ET is underestimated by 13.0% for Case III where effective LAI is used ignoring clumping. Among all plant functional types (PFTs), evergreen needleleaf forests were most affected by foliage clumping for ET estimation in Case II, because they are most clumped with the lowest CI. Deciduous broadleaf forests are affected by leaf clumping most in Case III because they have both high LAI and low CI compared to other PFTs. The leaf clumping effects on ET estimation in both Case II and Case III is robust to the errors in major input parameters. Thus, it is necessary to consider clumping effects in the simulation of global terrestrial ET, which has considerable implications for global water cycle research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".