MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143024522 · doi:10.5194/bg-11-3871-2014

Global cropland monthly gross primary production in the year 2000

2014· article· en· W2143024522 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tao Chen, Guido R. van der Werf, Nadine Gobron, Eddy Moors, A. J. Dolman

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryNanjing UniversityNatural Resources CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionOak Ridge National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMicrosoft ResearchUniversité LavalNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPrimary productionEnvironmental scienceLand coverSatelliteFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric sciencesEcosystemGeographyLand useClimatologyEcologyGeologyBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Croplands cover about 12% of the ice-free terrestrial land surface. Compared with natural ecosystems, croplands have distinct characteristics due to anthropogenic influences. Their global gross primary production (GPP) is not well constrained and estimates vary between 8.2 and 14.2 Pg C yr−1. We quantified global cropland GPP using a light use efficiency (LUE) model, employing satellite observations and survey data of crop types and distribution. A novel step in our analysis was to assign a maximum light use efficiency estimate (ϵ*GPP) to each of the 26 different crop types, instead of taking a uniform value as done in the past. These ϵ*GPP values were calculated based on flux tower CO2 exchange measurements and a literature survey of field studies, and ranged from 1.20 to 2.96 g C MJ−1. Global cropland GPP was estimated to be 11.05 Pg C yr−1 in the year 2000. Maize contributed most to this (1.55 Pg C yr−1), and the continent of Asia contributed most with 38.9% of global cropland GPP. In the continental United States, annual cropland GPP (1.28 Pg C yr−1) was close to values reported previously (1.24 Pg C yr−1) constrained by harvest records, but our estimates of ϵ*GPP values were considerably higher. Our results are sensitive to satellite information and survey data on crop type and extent, but provide a consistent and data-driven approach to generate a look-up table of ϵ*GPP for the 26 crop types for potential use in other vegetation 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207