Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate <scp>F</scp>ree‐<scp>A</scp>ir <scp>CO</scp><sub>2</sub><scp> E</scp>nrichment studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analysed the responses of 11 ecosystem models to elevated atmospheric [CO2 ] (eCO2 ) at two temperate forest ecosystems (Duke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments) to test alternative representations of carbon (C)-nitrogen (N) cycle processes. We decomposed the model responses into component processes affecting the response to eCO2 and confronted these with observations from the FACE experiments. Most of the models reproduced the observed initial enhancement of net primary production (NPP) at both sites, but none was able to simulate both the sustained 10-yr enhancement at Duke and the declining response at ORNL: models generally showed signs of progressive N limitation as a result of lower than observed plant N uptake. Nonetheless, many models showed qualitative agreement with observed component processes. The results suggest that improved representation of above-ground-below-ground interactions and better constraints on plant stoichiometry are important for a predictive understanding of eCO2 effects. Improved accuracy of soil organic matter inventories is pivotal to reduce uncertainty in the observed C-N budgets. The two FACE experiments are insufficient to fully constrain terrestrial responses to eCO2 , given the complexity of factors leading to the observed diverging trends, and the consequential inability of the models to explain these trends. Nevertheless, the ecosystem models were able to capture important features of the experiments, lending some support to their projections.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it