Simulating Competition and Coexistence between Plant Functional Types in a Dynamic Vegetation Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The global distribution of vegetation is broadly determined by climate, and where bioclimatic parameters are favorable for several plant functional types (PFTs), by the competition between them. Most current dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) do not, however, explicitly simulate inter-PFT competition and instead determine the existence and fractional coverage of PFTs based on quasi-equilibrium climate–vegetation relationships. When competition is explicitly simulated, versions of Lotka–Volterra (LV) equations developed in the context of interaction between animal species are almost always used. These equations may, however, exhibit unrealistic behavior in some cases and do not, for example, allow the coexistence of different PFTs in equilibrium situations. Coexistence may, however, be obtained by introducing features and mechanisms such as temporal environmental variation and disturbance, among others. A generalized version of the competition equations is proposed that includes the LV equations as a special case, which successfully models competition for a range of climate and vegetation regimes and for which coexistence is a permissible equilibrium solution in the absence of additional mechanisms. The approach is tested for boreal forest, tropical forest, savanna, and temperate forest locations within the framework of the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) and successfully simulates the observed successional behavior and the observed near-equilibrium distribution of coexisting PFTs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".