MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond surface fluxes: Observational and computational needs of multilayer canopy models – A walnut orchard test case

2025· article· en· W4416894114 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gordon B. Bonan, Sean P. Burns, Edward G. Patton

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Forest Meteorology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité LavalCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCanopyWind speedSensible heatAtmospheric instabilityTroposphereTurbulenceRange (aeronautics)Latent heatOrchard

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land surface models simulate fluxes exchanged between the land and atmosphere in weather and climate models. The prevailing modeling paradigm uses a big-leaf canopy parameterization that is not vertically-resolved. Multilayer canopy models have received interest over the past several years as a means to improve surface fluxes and enable new science. We present results from a comparison of the Community Land Model (CLM) multilayer canopy model (CLM-ml v2) and observations of air temperature, specific humidity, wind speed, and fluxes (net radiation, sensible heat, latent heat, momentum) at multiple heights in and above a walnut orchard during the Canopy Horizontal Array Turbulence Study (CHATS). The dataset provides a benchmark with which to test multilayer models. Above-canopy sensible heat, latent heat, and momentum fluxes are well simulated under a range of atmospheric regimes spanning strongly unstable, weakly unstable, near-neutral, weakly stable, and strongly stable, as are vertical profiles of fluxes within the canopy. Vertical profiles of wind speed closely match the observations under all stability regimes. Vertical profiles of air temperature and specific humidity are well simulated except for strongly stable conditions, when the first-order turbulence closure cannot represent within-canopy non-local vertical mixing that would otherwise transport the cool air produced by radiative cooling of the upper canopy downward to the lower canopy. Our model–data comparison highlights the potential of multilayer models to simulate the surface air space. The multilayer canopy model is simpler and more consistent with theory than is the CLM big-leaf canopy model, and it modernizes the canopy physics for theoretical and computational advances compared with CLM’s outdated ad-hoc parameterizations. Nonetheless, our analysis points to further modeling needs and identifies observations central to model testing. Measurements of within-canopy micrometeorology and leaf gas exchange are needed in addition to above-canopy fluxes. • Multilayer canopy models are a useful alternative to big-leaf canopy models. • Multilayer models enable new science in land–atmosphere coupling. • Multilayer models simulate the neglected air space between the atmosphere and land. • New observational datasets are needed to advance and test multilayer models. • Precise model evaluation requires expert knowledge of the observational data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueAgricultural and Forest MeteorologySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207