Canopy temperatures strongly overestimate leaf thermal safety margins of tropical trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Current estimates of temperature effects on plants mostly rely on air temperature, although it can significantly deviate from leaf temperature (Tleaf). To address this, some studies have used canopy temperature (Tcan). However, Tcan fails to capture the fine‐scale variation in Tleaf among leaves and species in diverse canopies. We used infrared radiometers to study Tleaf and Tcan and how they deviate from air temperature (ΔTleaf and ΔTcan) in multispecies tropical tree plantations at three sites along an elevation and temperature gradient in Rwanda. Our results showed high Tleaf (up to c. 50°C) and ΔTleaf (on average 8–10°C and up to c. 20°C) of sun‐exposed leaves during 10:00 h–15:00 h, being close to or exceeding photosynthetic heat tolerance thresholds. These values greatly exceeded simultaneously measured values of Tcan and ΔTcan, respectively, leading to strongly overestimated leaf thermal safety margins if basing those on Tcan data. Stomatal conductance and leaf size affected Tleaf and Tcan in line with their expected influences on leaf energy balance. Our findings highlight the importance of leaf traits for leaf thermoregulation and show that monitoring Tcan is not enough to capture the peak temperatures and heat stress experienced by individual leaves of different species in tropical forest canopies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".