Isolating forest process effects on modelled snowpack density and snow water equivalent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how the presence of a forest canopy influences the underlying snowpack is critical to making accurate model predictions of bulk snow density and snow water equivalent (SWE). To investigate the relative importance of forest processes on snow density and SWE, we applied the SUMMA model at three sites representing diverse snow climates in Colorado (USA), Oregon (USA), and Alberta (Canada) for 5 years. First, control simulations were run for open and forest sites. Comparisons to observations showed the uncalibrated model with NLDAS‐2 forcing performed reasonably. Then, experiments were completed to isolate how forest processes affected modelled snowpack density and SWE, including: (1) mass reduction due to interception loss, (2) changes in the phase and amount of water delivered from the canopy to the underlying snow, (3) varying new snow density from reduced wind speed, and (4) modification of incoming longwave and shortwave radiation. Delivery effects (2) increased forest snowpack density relative to open areas, often more than 30%. Mass effects (1) and wind effects (3) decreased forest snowpack density, but generally by less than 6%. The radiation experiment (4) yielded negligible to positive effects (i.e., 0%–10%) on snowpack density. Delivery effects on density were greatest at the warmest times in the season and at the warmest site (Oregon): higher temperatures increased interception and melted intercepted snow, which then dripped to the underlying snowpack. In contrast, mass effects and radiation effects were shown to have the greatest impact on forest‐to‐open SWE differences, yielding differences greater than 30%. The study highlights the importance of delivery effects in models and the need for new types of observations to characterize how canopies influence the flux of water to the snow surface.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".