Evaluation of two process-based models to estimate soil N<sub>2</sub>O emissions in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Process-based models play an important role in the estimation of soil N 2 O emissions from regions with contrasting soil and climatic conditions. A study was performed to evaluate the ability of two process-based models, DAYCENT and DNDC, to estimate N 2 O emissions, soil nitrate- and ammonium-N levels, as well as soil temperature and water content. The measurement sites included a maize crop fertilized with pig slurry (Quebec) and a wheat-maize-soybean rotation as part of a tillage-fertilizer experiment (Ontario). At the Quebec site, both models accurately simulated soil temperature with an average relative error (ARE) ranging from 0 to 2%. The models underpredicted soil temperature at the Ontario site with ARE from −5 to −7% for DNDC and from −5 to −13% for DAYCENT. Both models underestimated soil water content particularly during the growing season. The DNDC model accurately predicted average seasonal N 2 O emissions across treatments at both sites whereas the DAYCENT model underpredicted N 2 O emissions by 32 to 58% for all treatments excluding the fertilizer treatment at the Quebec site. Both models had difficulty in simulating the timing of individual emission events. The hydrology and nitrogen transformation routines need to be improved in both models before further enhancements are made to the trace gas routines. Key words: Nitrous oxide, process-based model, DNDC, greenhouse gas emissions, soil
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".