Consequences of changes in vegetation and snow cover for climate feedbacks in Alaska and northwest Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in vegetation and snow cover may lead to feedbacks to climate through changes in surface albedo and energy fluxes between the land and atmosphere. In addition to these biogeophysical feedbacks, biogeochemical feedbacks associated with changes in carbon (C) storage in the vegetation and soils may also influence climate. Here, using a transient biogeographic model (ALFRESCO) and an ecosystem model (DOS-TEM), we quantified the biogeophysical feedbacks due to changes in vegetation and snow cover across continuous permafrost to non-permafrost ecosystems in Alaska and northwest Canada. We also computed the changes in carbon storage in this region to provide a general assessment of the direction of the biogeochemical feedback. We considered four ecoregions, or Landscape Conservations Cooperatives (LCCs; including the Arctic, North Pacific, Western Alaska, and Northwest Boreal). We examined the 90 year period from 2010 to 2099 using one future emission scenario (A1B), under outputs from two general circulation models (MPI-ECHAM5 and CCCMA-CGCM3.1). We found that changes in snow cover duration, including both the timing of snowmelt in the spring and snow return in the fall, provided the dominant positive biogeophysical feedback to climate across all LCCs, and was greater for the ECHAM (+3.1 W m ^−2 decade ^−1 regionally) compared to the CCCMA (+1.3 W m ^−2 decade ^−1 regionally) scenario due to an increase in loss of snow cover in the ECHAM scenario. The greatest overall negative feedback to climate from changes in vegetation cover was due to fire in spruce forests in the Northwest Boreal LCC and fire in shrub tundra in the Western LCC (−0.2 to −0.3 W m ^−2 decade ^−1 ). With the larger positive feedbacks associated with reductions in snow cover compared to the smaller negative feedbacks associated with shifts in vegetation, the feedback to climate warming was positive (total feedback of +2.7 W m ^−2 decade regionally in the ECHAM scenario compared to +0.76 W m ^−2 decade regionally in the CCCMA scenario). Overall, increases in C storage in the vegetation and soils across the study region would act as a negative feedback to climate. By exploring these feedbacks to climate, we can reach a more integrated understanding of the manner in which climate change may impact interactions between high-latitude ecosystems and the global climate system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".