MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410510840 · doi:10.3390/f16050833

Trends and Influencing Factors of Summer Air Quality Changes in Four Forest Types

2025· article· en· W4410510840 on OpenAlexaff
Ruyi Zhou, Jiejie Jiao, Chunyu Pan, Zhihao Chen, Yichen Huang, Yufeng Zhou, Guomo Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKey Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAir quality indexGeographyQuality (philosophy)EcologyForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest ecosystems are crucial in mitigating air pollution and improving air quality. Therefore, investigating the relationships between air quality, forest structure, and environmental factors in different forest types is of significant importance. This study conducted three months of continuous monitoring (June–September 2023) of air quality factors (particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone (O3), and negative air ions (NAI)) and environmental factors (air temperature (TA), relative humidity (RH), light intensity (LI), and wind speed (WS)) in four subtropical forest types, along with vegetation characteristic surveys. The effects of forest structure and environmental factors on air quality were determined by correlation and multiple regression analysis. The results showed that the forest air quality is at its best in July during the summer season. Concentrations of particulate matter (PM) and ozone (O3) in mixed coniferous and broadleaf forests (MCB), as well as deciduous broadleaf forests (DB), are lower than those in moso bamboo forests (MB) and evergreen broadleaf forests (EB). The troughs of PM concentrations occur in the early morning (4:00–6:00), while the troughs of O3 concentrations occur in the early morning (4:00–6:00) and in the evening (18:00). NAI concentrations were highest in DB (1287 ions/cm3), followed by MCB (1187 ions/cm3), MB (896 ions/cm3), and EB (584 ions/cm3), with NAI concentrations peaking between 14:00 and 16:00. PM concentrations in forest air were primarily influenced by stand density (SD) and the Shannon–Wiener index of herbaceous layer (SWH) (p < 0.05); ozone concentrations were significantly affected by tree height (TH) and canopy density (CD) (p < 0.05); and NAI concentrations were primarily related to TH and diameter at breast height (DBH). Air particulate matter concentrations were negatively affected by TA and RH (p < 0.01), and ozone concentrations were negatively influenced by RH and WS and were positively influenced by TA. TA has a direct and significant positive effect on the NAI concentration (p < 0.01), and RH indirectly influences the changes in NAI concentration through its interaction with TA. This study provides new insights for vegetation optimization in forest parks and planning forest health-promoting activities for sub-healthy populations.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207