Impact of Forest Canopy Closure on Snow Processes in the Changbai Mountains, Northeast China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest canopy closure affects snow processes by changing the redistribution of snowfall, snow interception, accumulation, sublimation, and melt. However, how the forest closure impacts snow processes at different periods has not been well explored. We conducted 3-year measurements of snow density and depth and carried out snow process calculations (i.e., interception, sublimation, and snowmelt) from 2018 to 2021 in four mixed forests with different canopy closures and an open site in the Changbai Mountains, northeast China. We found that the snow density of the five study sites varied greatly (0.14–0.45 g/cm3). The snow depth (SD) at four mixed forests sites was smaller than that of the nearby open site. The SD decreased as the forest canopy closure increased. Additionally, the forest interception effect increased with the canopy closure and decreased as the snowfall intensity increased. The total interception efficiency of the four mixed forests in normal snow years changed from 34% to 73% and increased with forest canopy closure. The averaged sublimation rate (Ss) and snowmelt rate (Sr) of the four mixed forests varied during different periods of snow process. The Ss was 0.1–0.4 mm/day during the accumulation period and 0.2–1.0 mm/day during the ablation period, and the Sr was 1.5–10.5 mm/day during the ablation period. There was a good correlation between Ss, or Sr, and canopy closure, but interannual variation was observed in the correlation. The mean values of the effect of the four mixed forests on understory SWE (snow water equivalent) over the 3 years ranged from −45% to −65%. Moreover, the impact effect was correlated with the forest canopy closure and enhanced with the canopy closure. This study provided more scientific information for studies of snow cover response to forest management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".