Diurnal and annual exchanges of mass and energy between an aspen-hazelnut forest and the atmosphere: Testing the mathematical model Ecosys with data from the BOREAS experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is much uncertainty about the net carbon (C) exchange of boreal forest ecosystems, although this exchange may be an important part of global C dynamics. To resolve this uncertainty, net C exchange has been measured at several sites in the boreal forest of Canada as part of the Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS). One of these sites is the Southern Old Aspen site at which diurnal CO2 and energy (radiation, latent, and sensible heat) fluxes were measured during 1994 using eddy correlation techniques at different positions within a mixed 70 year old aspen-hazelnut forest. These measurements were used to test a complex ecosystem model “ecosys” in which mass and energy exchanges between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere are simulated hourly under diverse conditions of soil, management, and climate. These simulations explained between 70% and 80% of diurnal variation in ecosystem CO2 and energy fluxes measured during three 1 week intervals in late April, early June, and mid-July. Total annual CO2 fluxes indicated that during 1994, aspen was a net sink of 540 (modeled) versus 670 (measured) g C m−2 yr−1, while hazelnut plus soil were a net source of 472 (modeled) versus 540 (measured) g C m−2 yr−1. The aspen-hazelnut forest at the BOREAS site was therefore estimated to be a net sink of about 68 (modeled) versus 130 (measured) g C m−2 yr−1 during 1994. Long-term simulations indicated that this sink may be larger during cooler years and smaller during warmer years because C fixation in the model was less sensitive to temperature than respiration. These simulations also indicated that the magnitude of this sink declines with forest age because respiration increases with respect to fixation as standing phytomass grows. Confidence in the predictive capabilities of ecosystem models at decadal or centennial timescales is improved by well-constrained tests of these models at hourly timescales. An edited version of this paper was published by AGU. Copyright 1999 American Geophysical Union.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".