MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986780204

Rainfall redistribution by the canopy of a juvenile lodgepole pine stand

2015· article· en· W6986780204 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThroughfallStemflowCanopyInterceptionTransectCanopy interception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From May to October 2010, throughfall associated with 38 rainfall events in three below-canopy zones (inner-canopy, mid-canopy, and canopy-periphery) of nine juvenile lodgepole pine trees and in open areas between canopies was measured along north, south, east and west transects radiating from each tree bole. Median cumulative throughfall (%) significantly differed among the canopy zones under differing rain depth classes and was negatively correlated with tree size metrics, but only for certain combinations of canopy zones and rain depth classes. Although median cumulative throughfall (%) was negatively correlated with canopy cover fraction when all below-canopy gauges were considered, this relationship only held true for the inner- and mid-canopy zones under relatively small rain depth classes. Additionally, cumulative throughfall (%) was often dependent on transect direction, with event throughfall showing a dependence on the direction of storm origin. Temporal persistence of throughfall was assessed using time stability plots and Spearman rank coefficients of rain event and depth class pairings for all gauges and by canopy zone. The influence of temporal lag and meteorological variables on persistence was also assessed. The implications of our findings on throughfall sampling and for future ecohydrological studies in juvenile lodgepole pine and similar stands are discussed. Additionally, stemflow was measured so that a full canopy water balance could be derived for each event and over the study period. Canopy interception loss, throughfall and stemflow accounted for 87.7, 10.5, and 1.8% of the study-period rainfall, respectfully. Both the reformulated Gash and reformulated Liu models were found to have satisfactory simulated study-period interception loss; however, estimates at the rain-event scale were often poor. Interception loss from the juvenile stand is largely a factor of canopy cover fraction and relatively high during-rainfall evaporation rates.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network)Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207