MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390729402 · doi:10.1080/11956860.2024.2303187

Increasing trend in ecosystem-scale photosynthetic efficiency in the Yellow River Basin since 2000 caused by afforestation and climate change

2023· article· en· W4390729402 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bin Wang, Shuna Xue, Zhongen Niu

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLeaf area indexEnvironmental scienceEvapotranspirationPhotosynthetic capacityEcosystemVegetation (pathology)AfforestationAtmospheric sciencesPhotosynthesisGreeningClimate changeEcologyBotanyAgroforestryBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used the leaf area index (LAI) and solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) to represent vegetation greenness and photosynthetic capacity, respectively, and the ratio of SIF to LAI (SIF/LAI) as an indicator of ecosystem-scale photosynthetic efficiency. We analyzed the spatial-temporal dynamics of SIF/LAI and its driving factors in the Yellow River Basin (YRB) of China from 2000 to 2021. The annual increase rate was 1.89% for SIF and 1.21% for LAI. The greater increase in SIF relative to LAI led to a significant increase in SIF/LAI ratio from 2000 to 2021, with an annual increase of 0.63%. This suggests an enhanced photosynthetic capacity per unit LAI over time. Forest cover explained 48% of the SIF/LAI rising trend, followed by temperature (26%) and the standardized precipitation-evapotranspiration index (SPEI, 16%). Regionally, the SIF/LAI had annual increasing rates of 1.25% and 1.10% in the upper and middle reaches of the YRB, respectively. Meanwhile, the SIF/LAI of the source region and lower reaches did not show a significant trend. This study deepens the understanding of the relationship between vegetation greening and photosynthetic capacity, which has implications for ecosystem 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207