Does climate directly influence <scp>NPP</scp> globally?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for rigorous analyses of climate impacts has never been more crucial. Current textbooks state that climate directly influences ecosystem annual net primary productivity (NPP), emphasizing the urgent need to monitor the impacts of climate change. A recent paper challenged this consensus, arguing, based on an analysis of NPP for 1247 woody plant communities across global climate gradients, that temperature and precipitation have negligible direct effects on NPP and only perhaps have indirect effects by constraining total stand biomass (Mtot ) and stand age (a). The authors of that study concluded that the length of the growing season (lgs ) might have a minor influence on NPP, an effect they considered not to be directly related to climate. In this article, we describe flaws that affected that study's conclusions and present novel analyses to disentangle the effects of stand variables and climate in determining NPP. We re-analyzed the same database to partition the direct and indirect effects of climate on NPP, using three approaches: maximum-likelihood model selection, independent-effects analysis, and structural equation modeling. These new analyses showed that about half of the global variation in NPP could be explained by Mtot combined with climate variables and supported strong and direct influences of climate independently of Mtot , both for NPP and for net biomass change averaged across the known lifetime of the stands (ABC = average biomass change). We show that lgs is an important climate variable, intrinsically correlated with, and contributing to mean annual temperature and precipitation (Tann and Pann ), all important climatic drivers of NPP. Our analyses provide guidance for statistical and mechanistic analyses of climate drivers of ecosystem processes for predictive modeling and provide novel evidence supporting the strong, direct role of climate in determining vegetation productivity at the global scale.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".