Modeling Global Soil Carbon and Soil Microbial Carbon by Integrating Microbial Processes into the Ecosystem Process Model <scp>TRIPLEX‐GHG</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microbial physiology plays a critical role in the biogeochemical cycles of the Earth system. However, most traditional soil carbon models are lacking in terms of the representation of key microbial processes that control the soil carbon response to global climate change. In this study, the improved process‐based model TRIPLEX‐GHG was developed by coupling it with the new MEND (Microbial‐ENzyme‐mediated Decomposition) model to estimate total global soil organic carbon (SOC) and global soil microbial carbon. The new model (TRIPLEX‐MICROBE) shows considerable improvement over the previous version (TRIPLEX‐GHG) in simulating SOC. We estimated the global soil carbon stock to be approximately 1195 Pg C, with 348 Pg C located in the high northern latitudes, which is in good agreement with the well‐regarded Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD) and the Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database (NCSCD). We also estimated the global soil microbial carbon to be 21 Pg C, similar to the 23 Pg C estimated by Xu et al. (2014). We found that the microbial carbon quantity in the latitudinal direction showed reversions at approximately 30°N, near the equator and at 25°S. A sensitivity analysis suggested that the tundra ecosystem exhibited the highest sensitivity to a 1°C increase or decrease in temperature in terms of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), and mineral‐associated organic carbon (MOC). However, our work represents the first step toward a new generation of ecosystem process models capable of integrating key microbial processes into soil carbon cycles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".