Challenging terrestrial biosphere models with data from the long‐term multifactor Prairie Heating and <scp>CO</scp><sub>2</sub> Enrichment experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multifactor experiments are often advocated as important for advancing terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs), yet to date, such models have only been tested against single‐factor experiments. We applied 10 TBMs to the multifactor Prairie Heating and CO2 Enrichment (PHACE) experiment in Wyoming, USA. Our goals were to investigate how multifactor experiments can be used to constrain models and to identify a road map for model improvement. We found models performed poorly in ambient conditions; there was a wide spread in simulated above‐ground net primary productivity (range: 31–390 g C m−2 yr−1). Comparison with data highlighted model failures particularly with respect to carbon allocation, phenology, and the impact of water stress on phenology. Performance against the observations from single‐factors treatments was also relatively poor. In addition, similar responses were predicted for different reasons across models: there were large differences among models in sensitivity to water stress and, among the N cycle models, N availability during the experiment. Models were also unable to capture observed treatment effects on phenology: they overestimated the effect of warming on leaf onset and did not allow CO2‐induced water savings to extend the growing season length. Observed interactive (CO2 × warming) treatment effects were subtle and contingent on water stress, phenology, and species composition. As the models did not correctly represent these processes under ambient and single‐factor conditions, little extra information was gained by comparing model predictions against interactive responses. We outline a series of key areas in which this and future experiments could be used to improve model predictions of grassland responses to global change.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".