Can atmospheric chemistry deposition schemes reliably simulate stomatal ozone flux across global land covers and climates?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Over the past few decades, ozone risk assessments for vegetation have evolved two methods based on stomatal O3 flux. However, substantial uncertainties remain in accurately simulating these fluxes. Here, we investigate stomatal O3 fluxes across various land cover types worldwide simulated by six established deposition models. Hourly O3 concentration and meteorological data at nine sites were extracted from the Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report (TOAR) database, a comprehensive global collection of measurements, for the model simulations. The models estimated reasonable O3 deposition (0.5–0.8 cm s−1 in summer), which is mostly in agreement with the literature. Simulations of canopy conductance showed differences that varied by land cover type with correlation coefficients of 0.75, 0.80, and 0.85 for forests, crops, and grasslands among the models. Differences between models were primarily influenced by soil moisture and vapour pressure deficit, depending on each model's specific structure. Across models, the range of O3 damage simulations at each site was most consistent for crops (6 to 11 mmol O3 m−2), followed by forests (3 to 19.5 mmol O3 m−2) and grasslands (7 to 33 mmol O3 m−2). The median estimate across models aligns well with the literature at the sites most vulnerable to O3 damage. Overall, this study represents a critical first step in developing and evaluating tools for broad-scale assessment of O3 impacts on vegetation within the framework of TOAR phase II.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".