MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102176286 · doi:10.1890/es14-00335.1

Experimental warming altered rates of carbon processes, allocation, and carbon storage in a tallgrass prairie

2015· article· en· W2102176286 on OpenAlex
Zheng Shi, Xia Xu, Oleksandra Hararuk, Lifen Jiang, Jianyang Xia, Junyi Liang, Dejun Li, Yiqi Luo

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre Pacific
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEcosystemCyclingLitterSoil carbonPrimary productionGlobal warmingTerrestrial ecosystemCarbon cycleEcologyClimate changeCarbon sequestrationAtmospheric sciencesAgronomySoil waterSoil scienceCarbon dioxideBiologyForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate warming affects ecosystem functioning by altering the rates of carbon (C) fixation and release. Modeling warming effect on terrestrial C cycling is critical given the feedbacks between climate and C cycling. However, the effect of warming on key model parameters and the resulting long‐term C dynamics has not been carefully examined. In this study, measurements from a nine‐year warming experimental site in a tallgrass prairie were assimilated into a terrestrial ecosystem C cycle model to assess warming effect on key model parameters and to quantify uncertainties of long‐term C projection. Warming decreased allocation of gross primary production (GPP) to shoot, and turnover rate of the live C pools (i.e., shoot and root C), but increased the turnover rates of litter and fast soil C pools. Consequently, warming increased live C pools, but decreased litter and soil C pools, and overall decreased total ecosystem C in a 90‐year model projection. Information content gained from assimilated datasets was much greater for plant, litter and fast soil C pools than for slow and passive soil C pools. Sensitivity analysis revealed that fast turnover C pools were most sensitive to their turnover rates and modest to C‐input related parameters on both short‐term and long‐term time scales. However, slow turnover C pools were sensitive to turnover rate and C input in long‐term prediction, not in short‐term prediction. As a result, total soil and ecosystem C pools were generally insensitive to any parameter in short term, but determined by turnover rates of the fast, slow and passive soil C and transfer coefficients from upstream C to slow and passive C pools. Our findings suggest that data assimilation is an effective tool to explore the effect of warming on C dynamics; the nine‐year field data contribute more information for the fast C processes than for the slow C processes; and C cycle model parameters change with warming, and models need to account for that phenomenon not to produce bias in C projections. However, warming‐induced changes in parameter values also suggest that some important ecosystem processes may be missing or not adequately represented in the ecosystem C models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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