MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884632737 · doi:10.1139/cjss10012

Water availability and forest growth in coarse-textured soils

2011· article· en· W6884632737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterTranspirationLeaf area indexPlant growthLayeringWater contentHydrology (agriculture)Evapotranspiration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Huang, M., Barbour, S. L., Elshorbagy, A., Zettl, J. D. and Si, B. C. 2011. Water availability and forest growth in coarse-textured soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 199-210. A method of evaluating the influence of soil layering and climatic variability on plant available water for forest growth is presented. This method enables species-specific levels of maximum sustainable plant transpiration to be evaluated. A calibrated HYDRUS-1D model was used with a 60-yr meteorological record to simulate actual evapotransipration (ETa) of dominant tree species with different values of leaf area index (LAI) for three sites in northern Alberta. A probability distribution of ETa was developed for each case. The relationships between LAI, plant above-ground primary production (ANPP), and ETa were used to estimate the minimum water demand to support plant growth at specific sites. The developed frequency curves of ETa and the minimum water demand can be used to determine the maximum sustainable LAI and the risk associated with revegetating a particular site with a dominant tree species. The effect of different tree species on the minimum water demand and the maximum sustainable LAI was also illustrated. The results indicated that layering of coarse-textured soils can provide more plant available water and support a higher maximum sustainable LAI than homogeneous soils of a similar texture.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.038 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207