MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109763965 · doi:10.5194/bg-9-3571-2012

The carbon budget of terrestrial ecosystems in East Asia over the last two decades

2012· article· en· W2109763965 on OpenAlex

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

VenueBiogeosciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEuropean Commission
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCarbon cycleTerrestrial ecosystemCarbon sinkEast AsiaClimate changeEcosystemAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyChinaGeographyEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes regional study provides a synthesis of the carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in East Asia, a region comprised of China, Japan, North and South Korea, and Mongolia. We estimate the current terrestrial carbon balance of East Asia and its driving mechanisms during 1990–2009 using three different approaches: inventories combined with satellite greenness measurements, terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycle models and atmospheric inversion models. The magnitudes of East Asia's terrestrial carbon sink from these three approaches are comparable: −0.293±0.033 PgC yr−1 from inventory–remote sensing model–data fusion approach, −0.413±0.141 PgC yr−1 (not considering biofuel emissions) or −0.224±0.141 PgC yr−1 (considering biofuel emissions) for carbon cycle models, and −0.270±0.507 PgC yr−1 for atmospheric inverse models. Here and in the following, the numbers behind ± signs are standard deviations. The ensemble of ecosystem modeling based analyses further suggests that at the regional scale, climate change and rising atmospheric CO2 together resulted in a carbon sink of −0.289±0.135 PgC yr−1, while land-use change and nitrogen deposition had a contribution of −0.013±0.029 PgC yr−1 and −0.107±0.025 PgC yr−1, respectively. Although the magnitude of climate change effects on the carbon balance varies among different models, all models agree that in response to climate change alone, southern China experienced an increase in carbon storage from 1990 to 2009, while northern East Asia including Mongolia and north China showed a decrease in carbon storage. Overall, our results suggest that about 13–27% of East Asia's CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning have been offset by carbon accumulation in its terrestrial territory over the period from 1990 to 2009. The underlying mechanisms of carbon sink over East Asia still remain largely uncertain, given the diversity and intensity of land management processes, and the regional conjunction of many drivers such as nutrient deposition, climate, atmospheric pollution and CO2 changes, which cannot be considered as independent for their effects on carbon storage.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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