MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3206796551 · doi:10.5194/acp-2021-641

Biogeochemical and biophysical responses to episodes of wildfire smoke from natural ecosystems in southwestern British Columbia, Canada

2021· article· en· W3206796551 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sung‐Ching Lee, Sara Knox, Ian G. McKendry, T. Andrew Black

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiogeochemical cycleEnvironmental scienceEcosystemSmokeEddy covarianceProductivityWetlandAtmospheric sciencesCarbon sinkEcologyGeographyMeteorologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Area burned, number of fires, seasonal fire severity, and fire season length are all expected to increase in Canada, with largely unquantified ecosystem feedbacks. However, there are few observational studies measuring the ecosystem‐scale biogeochemical and biophysical properties during smoke episodes, and hence accessing productivity effects of changes in incident diffuse photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). In this study, we leverage two long-term eddy covariance measurement sites in forest and wetland to study four smoke episodes, which happened at different times and differed in length, over four different years. We found that the highest decrease of shortwave irradiance due to smoke was about 50 % in July and August but increased to about 90 % when the smoke arrived in September. When the smoke arrived in the later stage of summer, impacts on H and LE were also greatest. Smoke generally increased the diffuse fraction from ~0.30 to ~0.50 and turned both sites into stronger carbon-dioxide (CO2) sinks with increased productivity of ~18 % and ~7 % at the forest and wetland sites, respectively. However, when the diffuse fraction exceeded 0.80 as a result of dense smoke, both ecosystems became CO2 sources as total PAR dropped to low values. The results suggest that this kind of natural experiment is important for validating future predictions of smoke‐productivity feedbacks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→