MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1804701345 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2013-0314

Combined effects of rising [CO<sub>2</sub>] and temperature on boreal forests: growth, physiology and limitations

2014· article· en· W1804701345 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joseph R. Stinziano, Danielle A. Way

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaBiomass (ecology)Climate changeBorealBiologyProductivityEnvironmental scienceEcologyGrowing seasonGlobal warmingAgronomyLatitudeAtmospheric sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is expected to be most pronounced at high latitudes, but we have little data on how dominant boreal tree species will respond to rising temperatures and CO2 concentrations ([CO2]). We review the mechanisms through which elevated growth temperatures and atmospheric CO2 alter tree physiology and growth, focusing on the dominant species in northern forests. Water and nutrient availability, as well as day length, are likely to constrain the ability of these forests to respond positively to warmer, potentially longer growing seasons and higher CO2 levels. We also analyze published tree responses to future climate scenarios for key boreal tree species and show that (i) high [CO2] increases biomass and net photosynthetic rates compared with ambient [CO2], under both current temperatures and warmer climates; (ii) increases in temperature above current levels have little effect on growth or carbon gain; and (iii) the combination of elevated [CO2] and elevated temperatures increases plant biomass, but this effect appears to have a threshold above a 5 °C increase in growth temperatures. While rising temperatures and [CO2], therefore, have the potential to increase the productivity of northern forest species (based on experiments that supply ample water and fertilizer), this response is likely to be limited by these soil resources and the photoperiod in the field, and may not occur under the more extreme warming conditions predicted for the future in this region.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations58
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207