Canopy transpiration and its controlling mechanisms among rainfall patterns in a boreal larch forest in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rainfall patterns affect vegetation water use through canopy transpiration (Ec) and are becoming increasingly variable due to global warming. However, Ec and its controlling mechanisms in boreal forests have rarely been investigated under various rainfall patterns. In this study, we measured the sap flow using thermal dissipation method in a boreal larch forest ( Larix gmelinii ) and observed biophysical variables simultaneously (e.g., air temperature, solar radiation, relative humidity, vapor pressure deficit, wind speed, soil water content, rainfall, and leaf area index) over two consecutive growing seasons (May–September) in 2021 and 2022. The responses of Ec to rainfall patterns were evaluated among three rainfall categories (classified based on rainfall amount, duration, and intensity), five types of rainfall timing, and two phenology periods (i.e., leaf expansion and defoliation periods). The results showed that daytime Ec significantly decreased, while nighttime Ec was less variable with increasing rainfall amount, duration, and intensity. The responses of Ec to rainfall categories with different rainfall amount, duration, and intensity were inconsistent at the monthly scale. The magnitude and diurnal dynamics of Ec were greatly influenced by the rainfall timing, and these effects got more considerable with increasing rainfall amount, duration, and intensity. Surprisingly, Ec showed opposite responses to rainfall in leaf expansion and defoliation periods, suggesting an enhanced impact in the leaf expansion period while a diminished impact in the leaf defoliation period. The significantly affected biophysical factors of Ec varied dramatically among rainfall categories. The interactions between biophysical factors and Ec were more complex and diverse in days without rainfall events than days with rainfall days. These findings highlight the importance of rainfall patterns in affecting Ec, provide new insight into the interactions between rainfall patterns, Ec, and biophysical factors, and are important supports for improving evapotranspiration simulations in the context of climate change.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".