Phenology of Photosynthesis in Winter‐Dormant Temperate and Boreal Forests: Long‐Term Observations From Flux Towers and Quantitative Evaluation of Phenology Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined the seasonality of photosynthesis in 46 evergreen needleleaf (evergreen needleleaf forests (ENF)) and deciduous broadleaf (deciduous broadleaf forests (DBF)) forests across North America and Eurasia. We quantified the onset and end (StartGPP and EndGPP) of photosynthesis in spring and autumn based on the response of net ecosystem exchange of CO2 to sunlight. To test the hypothesis that snowmelt is required for photosynthesis to begin, these were compared with end of snowmelt derived from soil temperature. ENF forests achieved 10% of summer photosynthetic capacity ∼3 weeks before end of snowmelt, while DBF forests achieved that capacity ∼4 weeks afterward. DBF forests increased photosynthetic capacity in spring faster (1.95% d−1) than ENF (1.10% d−1), and their active season length (EndGPP–StartGPP) was ∼50 days shorter. We hypothesized that warming has influenced timing of the photosynthesis season. We found minimal evidence for long‐term change in StartGPP, EndGPP, or air temperature, but their interannual anomalies were significantly correlated. Warmer weather was associated with earlier StartGPP (1.3–2.5 days °C−1) or later EndGPP (1.5–1.8 days °C−1, depending on forest type and month). Finally, we tested whether existing phenological models could predict StartGPP and EndGPP. For ENF forests, air temperature‐ and daylength‐based models provided best predictions for StartGPP, while a chilling‐degree‐day model was best for EndGPP. The root mean square errors (RMSE) between predicted and observed StartGPP and EndGPP were 11.7 and 11.3 days, respectively. For DBF forests, temperature‐ and daylength‐based models yielded the best results (RMSE 6.3 and 10.5 days).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".