Reconstructing Evapotranspiration in British Columbia Since 1850 Using Publicly Available Tree-Ring Plots and Climate Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evapotranspiration (ET) rates will be affected by climate change and increasing frequency of extreme heat events. To understand how forests may respond to probable future climate conditions, it may be helpful to look at the past relationship between climate and ET. This can be accomplished using satellite imagery since the 1980s, but prior to that, a different approach is required. Using a global ET dataset (1982 to 2010) with 1 km resolution, climate station information from 1850 to 2010, and 54 tree-ring plots from the International Tree-Ring Data Bank (ITRDB) database, ET reconstructions were developed for each vegetated pixel with point-by-point regressions in British Columbia. ET was estimated for the province of British Columbia in Canada from 1850 to 1981, using random forest, support vector machine, and convolutional neural network regressions. ET satellite images from 1982 to 2010 formed our dataset to train models for each vegetated pixel. The random forest regression outperformed the other approaches with lower errors and better robustness (adjusted R2 value = 0.69; root mean square error = 10.72 mm/month). Modeled findings indicate that ET rates are generally increasing in British Columbia (ET = 0.0064 × Year + 52.339), but there were regional effects on local ET, as only the Humid Temperate ecodomain had strong correlations of ET with mean summer temperature (r = 0.257, p < 0.01) and mean summer precipitation (r = −0.208, p < 0.05). These historical estimates provide an opportunity to observe spatiotemporal variation in ET across British Columbia and elsewhere.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".