MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aboveground tree growth is a minor and decoupled fraction of boreal forest carbon input

2020· article· en· W3086423959 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christoforos Pappas, Jason Maillet, Sharon Rakowski, Jennifer L. Baltzer, Alan Barr, T. Andrew Black, Simone Fatichi, Colin P. Laroque, Ashley M. Matheny, Alexandre Roy, Oliver Sonnentag, Tianshan Zha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversity of British ColumbiaGlobal Institute for Water SecurityEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaBiomeEcosystemBorealEnvironmental scienceCanopyBoreal ecosystemAtmospheric sciencesForest ecologyBlack spruceEcologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The boreal biome accounts for approximately one third of the terrestrial carbon (C) sink. However, estimates of its individual C pools remain uncertain and are often limited to specific points in time. Here, focusing on the southern edge of the boreal forest in central Canada, we quantified the magnitude and temporal dynamics of C allocation to aboveground tree growth at a mature black spruce (Picea mariana)-dominated forest stand in Saskatchewan. We reconstructed annual total live aboveground tree biomass increment (AGBi) using a biometric approach, i.e., species-specific allometry combined with forest stand characteristics and tree ring widths collected with a C-oriented sampling design. We explored the links between boreal tree growth and ecosystem C input by comparing AGBi with eddy-covariance-derived ecosystem C fluxes from 1999 to 2015. Mean AGBi at the study site was 71 ± 7 g C m–2 (1999–2015), which is only a minor fraction of gross ecosystem production (GEP; i.e., AGBi / GEP ≈ 9 %). Ecosystem C input and AGBi were decoupled, highlighting the potential role of direct sink limitations (temperature, water availability) on boreal tree wood formation. Moreover, C allocation to AGBi remained stable over time, with a temporal trend of near zero (–0.0001 yr–1; p-value=0.775), contrary to significant trends in GEP (+5.72 g C m–2 yr–2; p-value=0.02) and ecosystem C use efficiency (i.e., NPP / GEP; –0.0041 yr–1, p-value=0.007). These findings highlight the importance of belowground tree C investments, together with the substantial contribution of understory, ground cover and soil to the boreal forest C balance. Our quantitative insights into the magnitude and temporal dynamics of aboveground boreal tree C allocation offer additional observational constraints for terrestrial ecosystem models that, to date, are biased in converting C input to biomass, and can guide forest-management strategies for mitigating carbon dioxide emissions.

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)0.000
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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207