MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969578591 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav1131

Water scaling of ecosystem carbon cycle feedback to climate warming

2019· article· en· W2969578591 on OpenAlexaff
Quan Quan, Dashuan Tian, Yiqi Luo, Fangyue Zhang, Thomas W. Crowther, Kai Zhu, Han Y. H. Chen, Qingping Zhou, Shuli Niu

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersSouthwest University for NationalitiesSouthwest UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of California, Santa Cruz
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCarbon cycleEcosystemWater cycleGlobal warmingCarbon fibersClimate changeScalingAtmospheric sciencesEcologyComputer scienceBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been well established by field experiments that warming stimulates either net ecosystem carbon uptake or release, leading to negative or positive carbon cycle-climate change feedback, respectively. This variation in carbon-climate feedback has been partially attributed to water availability. However, it remains unclear under what conditions water availability enhances or weakens carbon-climate feedback or even changes its direction. Combining a field experiment with a global synthesis, we show that warming stimulates net carbon uptake (negative feedback) under wet conditions, but depresses it (positive feedback) under very dry conditions. This switch in carbon-climate feedback direction arises mainly from scaling effects of warming-induced decreases in soil water content on net ecosystem productivity. This water scaling of warming effects offers generalizable mechanisms not only to help explain varying magnitudes and directions of observed carbon-climate feedback but also to improve model prediction of ecosystem carbon dynamics in response to 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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations200
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207