MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401515178 · doi:10.1029/2023jg007929

Reconstructing and Mapping Annual Net Primary Productivity (NPP) Since 1940 Using Tree Rings in Southern Indiana, U.S.

2024· article· en· W4401515178 on OpenAlexaff
Hang Li, James H. Speer‬, Ichchha Thapa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsPositive Living North
FundersIndiana State University
KeywordsPrimary productionNet (polyhedron)Primary productivityTree (set theory)DendrochronologyProductivityPrimary (astronomy)ForestryGeographyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsArchaeologyEconomicsEcologyBiologyCombinatoricsGeometryEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Vegetation absorption is one major form of carbon storage. The earliest spatial distribution of the Net Primary Production (NPP), an index to estimate how much carbon is absorbed, could extend back to the 1980s from satellite imagery. Our study reconstructed a time series annual NPP maps in the southern Indiana since 1940 with point‐by‐point regression models and ring‐width index (RWI) from 16 tree‐ring chronologies. Our RWI‐NPP model had a good performance using Random Forest (RF) regression comprehensively considering both normal and dry years. The RWI‐NPP model performance gap between forest and grassland is acceptable. We also found that the tendency (model of the tendency = −0.50) based on the combination of real NPP data and simulated NPP data were opposite to the one (slope = 18.70) only based on real NPP data where the extended data set could correct some bias caused by limited data. There is a huge NPP fluctuation in the recent years (2010–2013) which is highly likely to be caused by the combination of higher frequency of extreme climate events and the intensive land‐use and land‐cover change. We assume that most of the vegetation pixels had the same growing pattern with the plot in Morgan Monroe Flux Tower whose dominant species is ACSH (35.66%) or the plot in Hoot Woods whose dominant species is FRAM (34.41%). This study is novel in the assessment of the spatial distribution patterns of NPP since 1940. We can witness how the NPP changes within the last 70 years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research BiogeosciencesSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207