Winter respiratory C losses provide explanatory power for net ecosystem productivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate predictions of net ecosystem productivity (NEPc) of forest ecosystems are essential for climate change decisions and requirements in the context of national forest growth and greenhouse gas inventories. However, drivers and underlying mechanisms determining NEPc (e.g., climate and nutrients) are not entirely understood yet, particularly when considering the influence of past periods. Here we explored the explanatory power of the compensation day (cDOY)—defined as the day of year when winter net carbon losses are compensated by spring assimilation—for NEPc in 26 forests in Europe, North America, and Australia, using different NEPc integration methods. We found cDOY to be a particularly powerful predictor for NEPc of temperate evergreen needleleaf forests (R2 = 0.58) and deciduous broadleaf forests (R2 = 0.68). In general, the latest cDOY correlated with the lowest NEPc. The explanatory power of cDOY depended on the integration method for NEPc, forest type, and whether the site had a distinct winter net respiratory carbon loss or not. The integration methods starting in autumn led to better predictions of NEPc from cDOY then the classical calendar method starting 1 January. Limited explanatory power of cDOY for NEPc was found for warmer sites with no distinct winter respiratory loss period. Our findings highlight the importance of the influence of winter processes and the delayed responses of previous seasons' climatic conditions on current year's NEPc. Such carry‐over effects may contain information from climatic conditions, carbon storage levels, and hydraulic traits of several years back in time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".