Optimization of Terrestrial Ecosystem Model Parameters Using Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> Concentration Data With the Global Carbon Assimilation System (GCAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Global Carbon Assimilation System that assimilates ground‐based atmospheric CO2 data is used to estimate several key parameters in a terrestrial ecosystem model for the purpose of improving carbon cycle simulation. The optimized parameters are the leaf maximum carboxylation rate at 25°C ( ), the temperature sensitivity of ecosystem respiration (Q10), and the soil carbon pool size. The optimization is performed at the global scale at 1° resolution for the period from 2002 to 2008. The results indicate that vegetation from tropical zones has lower values than vegetation in temperate regions. Relatively high values of Q10 are derived over high/midlatitude regions. Both and Q10 exhibit pronounced seasonal variations at middle‐high latitudes. The maxima in occur during growing seasons, while the minima appear during nongrowing seasons. Q10 values decrease with increasing temperature. The seasonal variabilities of and Q10 are larger at higher latitudes. Optimized and Q10 show little seasonal variabilities at tropical regions. The seasonal variabilities of are consistent with the variabilities of LAI for evergreen conifers and broadleaf evergreen forests. Variations in leaf nitrogen and leaf chlorophyll contents may partly explain the variations in . The spatial distribution of the total soil carbon pool size after optimization is compared favorably with the gridded Global Soil Data Set for Earth System. The results also suggest that atmospheric CO2 data are a source of information that can be tapped to gain spatially and temporally meaningful information for key ecosystem parameters that are representative at the regional and global scales.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".