Comparison of boreal ecosystem model sensitivity to variability in climate and forest site parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecosystem models are useful tools for evaluating environmental controls on carbon and water cycles under past or future conditions. In this paper we compare annual carbon and water fluxes from nine boreal spruce forest ecosystem models in a series of sensitivity simulations. For each comparison, a single climate driver or forest site parameter was altered in a separate sensitivity run. Driver and parameter changes were prescribed principally to be large enough to identify and isolate any major differences in model responses, while also remaining within the range of variability that the boreal forest biome may be exposed to over a time period of several decades. The models simulated plant production, autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration, and evapotranspiration (ET) for a black spruce site in the boreal forest of central Canada (56°N). Results revealed that there were common model responses in gross primary production, plant respiration, and ET fluxes to prescribed changes in air temperature or surface irradiance and to decreased precipitation amounts. The models were also similar in their responses to variations in canopy leaf area, leaf nitrogen content, and surface organic layer thickness. The models had different sensitivities to certain parameters, namely the net primary production response to increased CO2 levels, and the response of soil microbial respiration to precipitation inputs and soil wetness. These differences can be explained by the type (or absence) of photosynthesis‐CO2 response curves in the models and by response algorithms of litter and humus decomposition to drying effects in organic soils of the boreal spruce ecosystem. Differences in the couplings of photosynthesis and soil respiration to nitrogen availability may also explain divergent model responses. Sensitivity comparisons imply that past conditions of the ecosystem represented in the models' initial standing wood and soil carbon pools, including historical climate patterns and the time since the last major disturbance, can be as important as potential climatic changes to prediction of the annual ecosystem carbon balance in this boreal spruce forest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".