Do land surface models need to include differential plant species responses to drought? Examining model predictions across a mesic-xeric gradient in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Future climate change has the potential to increase drought in many regions of the globe, making it essential that land surface models (LSMs) used in coupled climate models realistically capture the drought responses of vegetation. Recent data syntheses show that drought sensitivity varies considerably among plants from different climate zones, but state-of-the-art LSMs currently assume the same drought sensitivity for all vegetation. We tested whether variable drought sensitivities are needed to explain the observed large-scale patterns of drought impact on the carbon, water and energy fluxes. We implemented data-driven drought sensitivities in the Community Atmosphere Biosphere Land Exchange (CABLE) LSM and evaluated alternative sensitivities across a latitudinal gradient in Europe during the 2003 heatwave. The model predicted an overly abrupt onset of drought unless average soil water potential was calculated with dynamic weighting across soil layers. We found that high drought sensitivity at the most mesic sites, and low drought sensitivity at the most xeric sites, was necessary to accurately model responses during drought. Our results indicate that LSMs will over-estimate drought impacts in drier climates unless different sensitivity of vegetation to drought is taken into account.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".