MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944796417 · doi:10.1111/gcb.14677

Effects of 21st‐century climate, land use, and disturbances on ecosystem carbon balance in California

2019· article· en· W2944796417 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin M. Sleeter, David C. Marvin, D. Richard Cameron, Paul C. Selmants, A. L. Westerling, Jason Kreitler, Colin J. Daniel, Jinxun Liu, Tamara S. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaU.S. Geological SurveyCalifornia Energy Commission
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEcosystemCarbon sinkRadiative forcingTerrestrial ecosystemSink (geography)Climate changeAtmospheric sciencesCarbon cycleCarbon sequestrationClimatologyCarbon dioxideEcologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Terrestrial ecosystems are an important sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), sequestering ~30% of annual anthropogenic emissions and slowing the rise of atmospheric CO2. However, the future direction and magnitude of the land sink is highly uncertain. We examined how historical and projected changes in climate, land use, and ecosystem disturbances affect the carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in California over the period 2001–2100. We modeled 32 unique scenarios, spanning 4 land use and 2 radiative forcing scenarios as simulated by four global climate models. Between 2001 and 2015, carbon storage in California's terrestrial ecosystems declined by −188.4 Tg C, with a mean annual flux ranging from a source of −89.8 Tg C/year to a sink of 60.1 Tg C/year. The large variability in the magnitude of the state's carbon source/sink was primarily attributable to interannual variability in weather and climate, which affected the rate of carbon uptake in vegetation and the rate of ecosystem respiration. Under nearly all future scenarios, carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems was projected to decline, with an average loss of −9.4% (−432.3 Tg C) by the year 2100 from current stocks. However, uncertainty in the magnitude of carbon loss was high, with individual scenario projections ranging from −916.2 to 121.2 Tg C and was largely driven by differences in future climate conditions projected by climate models. Moving from a high to a low radiative forcing scenario reduced net ecosystem carbon loss by 21% and when combined with reductions in land‐use change (i.e., moving from a high to a low land‐use scenario), net carbon losses were reduced by 55% on average. However, reconciling large uncertainties associated with the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is needed to better constrain models used to establish baseline conditions from which ecosystem‐based climate mitigation strategies can be evaluated.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207