Effects of three global change drivers on terrestrial C:N:P stoichiometry: a global synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last few decades, there has been an increasing number of controlled‐manipulative experiments to investigate how plants and soils might respond to global change. These experiments typically examined the effects of each of three global change drivers [i.e., nitrogen (N) deposition, warming, and elevatedCO2] on primary productivity and on the biogeochemistry of carbon (C), N, and phosphorus (P) across different terrestrial ecosystems. Here, we capitalize on this large amount of information by performing a comprehensive meta‐analysis (>2000 case studies worldwide) to address how C:N:P stoichiometry of plants, soils, and soil microbial biomass might respond to individual vs. combined effects of the three global change drivers. Our results show that (i) individual effects of N addition and elevatedCO2on C:N:P stoichiometry are stronger than warming, (ii) combined effects of pairs of global change drivers (e.g., N addition + elevatedCO2, warming + elevatedCO2) on C:N:P stoichiometry were generally weaker than the individual effects of each of these drivers, (iii) additive interactions (i.e., when combined effects are equal to or not significantly different from the sum of individual effects) were more common than synergistic or antagonistic interactions, (iv) C:N:P stoichiometry of soil and soil microbial biomass shows high homeostasis under global change manipulations, and (v) C:N:P responses to global change are strongly affected by ecosystem type, local climate, and experimental conditions. Our study is one of the first to compare individual vs. combined effects of the three global change drivers on terrestrial C:N:P ratios using a large set of data. To further improve our understanding of how ecosystems might respond to future global change, long‐term ecosystem‐scale studies testing multifactor effects on plants and soils are urgently required across different world regions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".