Responses of nitrogen concentrations and pools to multiple environmental change drivers: A meta‐analysis across terrestrial ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We sought to understand how the individual and combined effects of multiple environmental change drivers differentially influence terrestrial nitrogen (N) concentrations and N pools and whether the interactive effects of these drivers are mainly antagonistic, synergistic or additive. Location Worldwide. Time period Contemporary. Major taxa studied Plants, soil, and soil microbes in terrestrial ecosystems. Methods We synthesized data from manipulative field studies from 758 published articles to estimate the individual, combined and interactive effects of key environmental change drivers (elevated CO2, warming, N addition, phosphorus addition, increased rainfall and drought) on plant, soil, and soil microbe N concentrations and pools using meta‐analyses. We assessed the influences of moderator variables on these effects through structural equation modelling. Results We found that (a) N concentrations and N pools were significantly affected by the individual and combined effects of multiple drivers, with N addition (either alone or in combination with another driver) showing the strongest positive effects; (b) the individual and combined effects of these drivers differed significantly between N concentrations and N pools in plants, but seldom in soils and microbes; (c) additive effects of driver pairs on N concentrations and pools were much more common than synergistic or antagonistic effects across plants, soils and microbes; and (d) environmental and experimental factors were important moderators of the individual, combined and interactive effects of these drivers on terrestrial N. Main conclusions Our results indicate that terrestrial N concentrations and N pools, especially those of plants, can be significantly affected by the individual and combined effects of environmental change drivers, with the interactive effects of these drivers being mostly additive. Our findings are important because they contribute to the development of models to better predict how altered N availability affects ecosystem carbon cycling under future environmental changes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".