MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015716027 · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12236

Land management trumps the effects of climate change and elevated <scp>CO</scp><sub>2</sub> on grassland functioning

2014· article· en· W2015716027 on OpenAlexaff
Aurélie Thébault, Pierre Mariotte, Christopher J. Lortie, Andrew S. MacDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsGrasslandClimate changeEnvironmental scienceEcosystem servicesLand managementEcosystemProductivityBiomass (ecology)EcologyTerrestrial ecosystemEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryLand useGlobal changeLand coverBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Grasslands cover ˜30% of the Earth's terrestrial surface and provide many ecosystem services. Many grasslands are heavily managed to maximize these services for human benefit, but the outcome of management is anticipated to be increasingly influenced by various aspects of climate change and elevated atmospheric CO2. The relative importance of global change vs. land management on grasslands is largely unknown. A meta‐analysis is used here to examine drivers at both scales primarily targeting services provided by grasslands relating to plant productivity (above‐ and below‐ground biomass) and soil processes (nutrients and soil respiration) in 38 manipulative experiments published in the last decade. We specifically target effects of (i) single and combined land management practices (LMs), (ii) single and combined factors relating to broad‐scale climate change and elevated CO2, and (iii) combined management practices and changes to climate and CO2. Collectively, this examines the general efficacy of global change models in predicting changes to grassland functioning. We found that combinations of management practices had approximately double the explanatory power for variation in grassland services compared with individual or interactive effects of factors associated with climate change and CO2. These interacting management practices such as nutrient additions and defoliation predominantly influenced functions associated with productivity or biomass both below and above ground. The effects of interacting factors of climate and CO2 influenced a wider range of ecosystem functions, but the magnitude of these effects was relatively smaller. Interactions between management practices or between climate change/CO2 factors always had higher explanatory power than any factor in isolation indicating that multivariate synergistic models of environmental change can better describe impacts on ecosystem function in plant communities (e.g. relative to univariate climate‐based models). Given that the magnitude and direction (positive or negative) of the interactions varied widely, this also implies that the outcomes of these multivariate interactions can vary spatially, temporally or by immediate context (e.g. management prescriptions). Synthesis. Although our work confirms how climate change and CO2 can affect many ecosystem‐based functional attributes, it suggests that combinations of LMs remain the dominant set of factors in determining the performance of grassland plant communities. Land management may thus be critical for influencing projected responses to future climate change and elevated CO2 in models of grassland function at least for factors relating to primary production.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations47
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207