Carbonyl sulfide exchange in soils for better estimates of ecosystem carbon uptake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbonyl sulfide (COS) measurements are one of the emerging tools to better quantify gross primary production (GPP), the largest flux in the global carbon cycle. COS is a gas with a similar structure to CO 2 ; COS uptake is thought to be a proxy for GPP. However, soils are a potential source or sink of COS. This study presents a framework for understanding soil–COS interactions. Excluding wetlands, most of the few observations of isolated soils that have been made show small uptake of atmospheric COS. Recently, a series of studies at an agricultural site in the central United States found soil COS production under hot conditions an order of magnitude greater than fluxes at other sites. To investigate the extent of this phenomenon, soils were collected from five new sites and incubated in a variety of soil moisture and temperature states. We found that soils from a desert, an oak savannah, a deciduous forest, and a rainforest exhibited small COS fluxes, behavior resembling previous studies. However, soil from an agricultural site in Illinois, > 800 km away from the initial central US study site, demonstrated comparably large soil fluxes under similar conditions. These new data suggest that, for the most part, soil COS interaction is negligible compared to plant uptake of COS. We present a model that anticipates the large agricultural soil fluxes so that they may be taken into account. While COS air-monitoring data are consistent with the dominance of plant uptake, improved interpretation of these data should incorporate the soil flux parameterizations suggested here.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".