MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096306343

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 110 (2002) 299–317 Measuring forest floor CO2 fluxes in a Douglas-fir forest

2001· article· en· W7096306343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddy covarianceForest floorFlux (metallurgy)DaytimeCanopyHydrology (agriculture)Water contentSoil respirationAtmosphere (unit)Temperate forest
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CO2 exchange was measured on the forest floor of a coastal temperate Douglas-fir forest located near Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada. Continuous measurements were obtained at six locations using an automated chamber system between April and December, 2000. Fluxes were measured every half hour by circulating chamber headspace air through a sampling manifold assembly and a closed-path infrared gas analyzer. Maximum CO2 fluxes measured varied by a factor of almost 3 between the chamber locations, while the highest daily average fluxes observed at two chamber locations occasionally reached values near 15mol C m−2 s−1. Generally, fluxes ranged between 2 and 10mol C m−2 s−1 during the measurement period. CO2 flux from the forest floor was strongly related to soil temperature with the highest correlation found with 5 cm depth temperature. A simple temperature dependent exponential model fit to the nighttime fluxes revealed Q10 values in the normal range of 2–3 during the warmer parts of the year, but values of 4–5 during cooler periods. Moss photosynthesis was negligible in four of the six chambers, while at the other locations, it reduced daytime half-hourly net CO2 flux by about 25%. Soil moisture had very little effect on forest floor CO2 flux. Hysteresis in the annual relationship between chamber fluxes and soil temperatures was observed. Net exchange from the six chambers was estimated to be 1920±530 g C m−2 per year, the higher estimates exceeding measurement of ecosystem respiration using year-round eddy correlation above the canopy at this site. This discrepancy is attributed to the inadequate number of chambers to obtain a reliable estimate of the spatial average soil CO2 flux

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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→