Data from: Modeling seasonal surface temperature variations in secondary tropical dry forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary tropical dry forests (TDFs) provide important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and nutrient cycle regulation. However, their biogeophysical processes at the canopy-atmosphere interface remain unknown, limiting our understanding of how this endangered ecosystem influences, and responds to the ongoing global warming. To facilitate future development of conservation policies, this study characterized the seasonal land surface temperature (LST) behavior of three successional stages (early, intermediate, and late) of a TDF, at the Santa Rosa National Park (SRNP), Costa Rica. A total of 38 Landsat-8 Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS) data and the Surface Reflectance (SR) product were utilized to model LST time series from July 2013 to July 2016 using a radiative transfer equation (RTE) algorithm. We further related the LST time series to seven vegetation indices which reflect different properties of TDFs, and soil moisture data obtained from a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN). Results showed that the LST in the dry season was 15–20 K higher than in the wet season at SRNP. We found that the early successional stages were about 6–8 K warmer than the intermediate successional stages and were 9–10 K warmer than the late successional stages in the middle of the dry season; meanwhile, a minimum LST difference (0–1 K) was observed at the end of the wet season. Leaf phenology and canopy architecture explained most LST variations in both dry and wet seasons. However, our analysis revealed that it is precipitation that ultimately determines the LST variations through both biogeochemical (leaf phenology) and biogeophysical processes (evapotranspiration) of the plants. Results of this study could help physiological modeling studies in secondary TDFs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".