MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409404326 · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1548578

Spring phenology in photosynthesis control and modeling for a temperate bog

2025· article· en· W4409404326 on OpenAlexaff
Hongxing He, Tim Moore, Peter M. Lafleur, Oliver Sonnentag, Elyn Humphreys, Mousong Wu, Nigel T. Roulet

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Environmental Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversité de MontréalTrent UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBogSpring (device)Temperate climatePhenologyEnvironmental sciencePhotosynthesisEcologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyPeatBiologyBotanyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting the carbon dynamics of northern peatlands requires adequate representation of the vegetation phenology in terrestrial biosphere models. In this study, we analyzed the relative importance of various environmental controls to explain the start of the growing season through photosynthetic CO 2 uptake for a temperate continental bog; accordingly, we used a multiyear measured dataset comprising eddy covariance (EC), supporting environmental measurements, and a digital image archive obtained using repeat photography. The vegetation in the studied bog is dominated by “evergreen” shrubs and mosses. The vegetation phenological indices data, including enhanced vegetation index, normalized difference vegetation index, and green chromatic coordinate, showed high correlations with the gross primary productivity (GPP) of the ecosystem obtained from EC measurements, near-surface soil temperatures, and the growing degree-day sum (∑GDD). We developed a new phenology scheme in the process-based CoupModel using ∑GDD to represent the gradual greening of the evergreen shrubs that regulate spring photosynthesis turn-on and increase. The new model simulates the earlier photosynthesis turn-on of the mosses and photosynthesis onset of the shrubs from days with ∑GDD = 50°C. Model simulations incorporating the new phenology subroutine for two vegetation layers (shrubs and mosses) show improved agreement with the daily EC-derived GPP. Our results show that when the spring phenology is not explicitly factored in, the CoupModel overestimates GPP by 24% and MODIS GPP by 45% at the end of the spring season. The results from this study are expected to advance our understanding of ecosystem dynamics and provide a foundation for refining ecosystem models to better capture the intricate interplay between phenology, carbon dynamics, and environmental conditions.

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 score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Environmental ScienceSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207