MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2239322794 · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-323-2016

Competition between plant functional types in the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) v. 2.0

2016· article· en· W2239322794 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceEcosystemPhysical geographyPrecipitationTerrestrial ecosystemClimate modelAtmospheric sciencesForcing (mathematics)EcologyClimatologyClimate changeGeologyGeographyMeteorologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) is the interactive vegetation component in the Earth system model of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis. CTEM models land–atmosphere exchange of CO2 through the response of carbon in living vegetation, and dead litter and soil pools, to changes in weather and climate at timescales of days to centuries. Version 1.0 of CTEM uses prescribed fractional coverage of plant functional types (PFTs) although, in reality, vegetation cover continually adapts to changes in climate, atmospheric composition and anthropogenic forcing. Changes in the spatial distribution of vegetation occur on timescales of years to centuries as vegetation distributions inherently have inertia. Here, we present version 2.0 of CTEM, which includes a representation of competition between PFTs based on a modified version of the Lotka–Volterra (L–V) predator–prey equations. Our approach is used to dynamically simulate the fractional coverage of CTEM's seven natural, non-crop PFTs, which are then compared with available observation-based estimates. Results from CTEM v. 2.0 show the model is able to represent the broad spatial distributions of its seven PFTs at the global scale. However, differences remain between modelled and observation-based fractional coverage of PFTs since representing the multitude of plant species globally, with just seven non-crop PFTs, only captures the large-scale climatic controls on PFT distributions. As expected, PFTs that exist in climate niches are difficult to represent either due to the coarse spatial resolution of the model, and the corresponding driving climate, or the limited number of PFTs used. We also simulate the fractional coverage of PFTs using unmodified L–V equations to illustrate its limitations. The geographic and zonal distributions of primary terrestrial carbon pools and fluxes from the versions of CTEM that use prescribed and dynamically simulated fractional coverage of PFTs compare reasonably well with each other and observation-based estimates. The parametrization of competition between PFTs in CTEM v. 2.0 based on the modified L–V equations behaves in a reasonably realistic manner and yields a tool with which to investigate the changes in spatial distribution of vegetation in response to future changes in climate.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.175 · 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