Precipitation manipulation and terrestrial carbon cycling: The roles of treatment magnitude, experimental duration and local climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Precipitation manipulation experiments have shown diverse terrestrial carbon (C) cycling responses when the ecosystem is subjected to different magnitudes of altered precipitation, various experimental durations or heterogeneity in local climate. However, how these factors combine to affect C cycle responses to changes in precipitation remains unclear. Location Global. Time period 1990–2019. Major taxa studied Terrestrial ecosystems. Methods Using observations from 230 published studies in which precipitation was manipulated and terrestrial C cycling variables were measured, we conducted a global meta‐analysis to investigate responses of diverse C cycle processes to altered precipitation, including gross ecosystem productivity, ecosystem respiration, net ecosystem productivity, ecosystem carbon use efficiency, net primary productivity (NPP), aboveground and belowground NPP, aboveground and belowground biomass, shoot‐to‐root ratio, soil respiration and soil microbial biomass C. Results We found that C cycling responses were correlated linearly and positively with the magnitude of precipitation treatments. We also detected that the responses of NPP and its aboveground component (ANPP) to altered precipitation weakened with experimental duration. Furthermore, gross ecosystem productivity, ecosystem respiration and net ecosystem productivity showed larger responses to precipitation treatments of greater magnitude over shorter time periods. The response of soil respiration, a key component of the C budget in most terrestrial ecosystems, depended in particular on the local climate. Local temperature and precipitation not only influenced the magnitude of the response of soil respiration to altered precipitation but also affected its sensitivity to the magnitude of the precipitation treatments, with higher sensitivities in the response of soil respiration to treatment magnitude at drier and colder sites. Main conclusions Our findings highlight the importance of the interactions between the magnitude of precipitation treatments, their duration and the local climate in the response of ecosystem C cycling to altered precipitation, which is crucial to a better understanding of ecosystem C processes and functioning and projecting them under changing precipitation regimes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".