Tropical tall forests are more sensitive and vulnerable to drought than short forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our limited understanding of the impacts of drought on tropical forests significantly impedes our ability in accurately predicting the impacts of climate change on this biome. Here, we investigated the impact of drought on the dynamics of forest canopies with different heights using time-series records of remotely sensed Ku-band vegetation optical depth (Ku-VOD), a proxy of top-canopy foliar mass and water content, and separated the signal of Ku-VOD changes into drought-induced reductions and subsequent non-drought gains. Both drought-induced reductions and non-drought increases in Ku-VOD varied significantly with canopy height. Taller tropical forests experienced greater relative Ku-VOD reductions during drought and larger non-drought increases than shorter forests, but the net effect of drought was more negative in the taller forests. Meta-analysis of in situ hydraulic traits supports the hypothesis that taller tropical forests are more vulnerable to drought stress due to smaller xylem-transport safety margins. Additionally, Ku-VOD of taller forests showed larger reductions due to increased atmospheric dryness, as assessed by vapor pressure deficit, and showed larger gains in response to enhanced water supply than shorter forests. Including the height-dependent variation of hydraulic transport in ecosystem models will improve the simulated response of tropical forests to drought.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".