Climate, soil organic layer, and nitrogen jointly drive forest development after fire in the North American boreal zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous empirical work has shown that feedbacks between fire severity, soil organic layer thickness, tree recruitment, and forest growth are important factors controlling carbon accumulation after fire disturbance. However, current boreal forest models inadequately simulate this feedback. We address this deficiency by updating the ED2 model to include a dynamic feedback between soil organic layer thickness, tree recruitment, and forest growth. The model is validated against observations spanning monthly to centennial time scales and ranging from Alaska to Quebec. We then quantify differences in forest development after fire disturbance resulting from changes in soil organic layer accumulation, temperature, nitrogen availability, and atmospheric CO2. First, we find that ED2 accurately reproduces observations when a dynamic soil organic layer is included. Second, simulations indicate that the presence of a thick soil organic layer after a mild fire disturbance decreases decomposition and productivity. The combination of the biological and physical effects increases or decreases total ecosystem carbon depending on local conditions. Third, with a 4°C temperature increase, some forests transition from undergoing succession to needleleaf forests to recruiting multiple cohorts of broadleaf trees, decreasing total ecosystem carbon by ∼40% after 300 years. However, the presence of a thick soil organic layer due to a persistently mild fire regime can prevent this transition and mediate carbon losses even under warmer temperatures. Fourth, nitrogen availability regulates successional dynamics; broadleaf species are less competitive with needleleaf trees under low nitrogen regimes. Fifth, the boreal forest shows additional short‐term capacity for carbon sequestration as atmospheric CO2 increases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".