Biophsyical constraints on gross primary production by the terrestrial biosphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Persistent divergences among the predictions of complex carbon-cycle models include differences in the sign as well as the magnitude of the response of global terrestrial primary production to climate change. Such problems with current models indicate an urgent need to reassess the principles underlying the environmental controls of primary production. The global patterns of annual and maximum monthly terrestrial gross primary production (GPP) by C3 plants are explored here using a simple first-principles model based on the light-use efficiency formalism and the Farquhar model for C3 photosynthesis. The model is driven by incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and remotely sensed green-vegetation cover, with additional constraints imposed by low-temperature inhibition and CO2 limitation. The ratio of leaf-internal to ambient CO2 concentration in the model responds to growing-season mean temperature, atmospheric dryness (indexed by the cumulative water deficit, Δ E) and elevation, based on an optimality theory. The greatest annual GPP is predicted for tropical moist forests, but the maximum (summer) monthly GPP can be as high, or higher, in boreal or temperate forests. These findings are supported by a new analysis of CO2 flux measurements. The explanation is simply based on the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of PAR combined with the physiology of photosynthesis. By successively imposing biophysical constraints, it is shown that partial vegetation cover – driven primarily by water shortage – represents the largest constraint on global GPP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".