MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785916520 · doi:10.5194/bg-15-3421-2018

Asymmetric responses of primary productivity to altered precipitation simulated by ecosystem models across three long-term grassland sites

2018· article· en· W2785916520 on OpenAlexaff
Donghai Wu, Philippe Ciais, Nicolas Viovy, Alan K. Knapp, Kevin R. Wilcox, Michael Bahn, Melinda D. Smith, Sara Vicca, Simone Fatichi, Jakob Zscheischler, Yue He, Xiangyi Li, Akihiko Ito, Almut Arneth, Anna Harper, Anna Ukkola, Athanasios Paschalis, Benjamin Poulter, Changhui Peng, Daniel Ricciuto, David Reinthaler, Guangsheng Chen, Hanqin Tian, Hélène Genet, Jiafu Mao, Johannes Ingrisch, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Julia Pongratz, Lena Boysen, Markus Kautz, Michael Schmitt, Patrick Meir, Qiuan Zhu, Roland Hasibeder, Sebastian Sippel, Shree R. S. Dangal, Stephen Sitch, Xiaoying Shi, Ying‐Ping Wang, Yiqi Luo, Yongwen Liu, Shilong Piao

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchVlaamse regeringOffice of ScienceAustrian Science FundTechnische Universität WienÖsterreichischen Akademie der WissenschaftenNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPrimary productionEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationEcosystemGrasslandSteppeAtmospheric sciencesProductivityTemperate climateCarbon cycleEcologyBiologyGeographyGeologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Field measurements of aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) in temperate grasslands suggest that both positive and negative asymmetric responses to changes in precipitation (P) may occur. Under normal range of precipitation variability, wet years typically result in ANPP gains being larger than ANPP declines in dry years (positive asymmetry), whereas increases in ANPP are lower in magnitude in extreme wet years compared to reductions during extreme drought (negative asymmetry). Whether the current generation of ecosystem models with a coupled carbon–water system in grasslands are capable of simulating these asymmetric ANPP responses is an unresolved question. In this study, we evaluated the simulated responses of temperate grassland primary productivity to scenarios of altered precipitation with 14 ecosystem models at three sites: Shortgrass steppe (SGS), Konza Prairie (KNZ) and Stubai Valley meadow (STU), spanning a rainfall gradient from dry to moist. We found that (1) the spatial slopes derived from modeled primary productivity and precipitation across sites were steeper than the temporal slopes obtained from inter-annual variations, which was consistent with empirical data; (2) the asymmetry of the responses of modeled primary productivity under normal inter-annual precipitation variability differed among models, and the mean of the model ensemble suggested a negative asymmetry across the three sites, which was contrary to empirical evidence based on filed observations; (3) the mean sensitivity of modeled productivity to rainfall suggested greater negative response with reduced precipitation than positive response to an increased precipitation under extreme conditions at the three sites; and (4) gross primary productivity (GPP), net primary productivity (NPP), aboveground NPP (ANPP) and belowground NPP (BNPP) all showed concave-down nonlinear responses to altered precipitation in all the models, but with different curvatures and mean values. Our results indicated that most models overestimate the negative drought effects and/or underestimate the positive effects of increased precipitation on primary productivity under normal climate conditions, highlighting the need for improving eco-hydrological processes in those models in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207