Modeling Climate Change Impacts on an Arctic Polygonal Tundra: 2. Changes in CO<sub>2</sub> and CH<sub>4</sub> Exchange Depend on Rates of Permafrost Thaw as Affected by Changes in Vegetation and Drainage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Model projections of future CO 2 and CH 4 exchange in Arctic tundra diverge widely. Here we used ecosys to examine how climate change will affect CO 2 and CH 4 exchange in troughs, rims, and centers of a coastal polygonal tundra landscape at Barrow, AK. The model was shown to simulate diurnal and seasonal variation in CO 2 and CH 4 fluxes associated with those in air and soil temperatures ( T a and T s ) and soil water contents ( θ ) under current climate in 2014 and 2015. During RCP 8.5 climate change from 2015 to 2085, rising T a , atmospheric CO 2 concentrations ( C a ), and precipitation ( P ) increased net primary productivity (NPP) from 50–150 g C m -2 y -1 , consistent with current biometric estimates, to 200–250 g C m −2 y −1 . Concurrent increases in heterotrophic respiration ( R h ) were slightly smaller, so that net CO 2 exchange rose from values of −25 (net emission) to +50 (net uptake) g C m −2 y −1 to ones of −10 to +65 g C m −2 y −1 . Increases in net CO 2 uptake were largely offset by increases in CH 4 emissions from 0–6 to 1–20 g C m −2 y −1 , reducing gains in net ecosystem productivity. These increases in net CO 2 uptake and CH 4 emissions were modeled with hydrological boundary conditions that were assumed not to change with climate. Both these increases were smaller if boundary conditions were gradually altered to increase landscape drainage during model runs with climate 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".