MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190359607 · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2021.689301

On the Treatment of Soil Water Stress in GCM Simulations of Vegetation Physiology

2021· article· en· W3190359607 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pier Luigi Vidale, Gregorio Egea, Patrick McGuire, Markus Todt, Wouter Peters, Omar V. Müller, Beena Balan Sarojini, Anne Verhoef

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Environmental Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeUniversidad de SevillaUniversité LavalMicrosoft ResearchOak Ridge National LaboratorySight Research UKFundación Ramón ArecesNatural Environment Research CouncilMet OfficeU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)Permanent wilting pointWater contentEnvironmental scienceTemperate climateWiltingSoil waterHydrology (agriculture)Atmospheric sciencesSoil scienceEcologyBiologyGeologyBotanyField capacity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current land surface schemes in weather and climate models make use of the so-called coupled photosynthesis–stomatal conductance (A–gs) models of plant function to determine the surface fluxes that govern the terrestrial energy, water and carbon budgets. Plant physiology is controlled by many environmental factors, and a number of complex feedbacks are involved, but soil moisture control on root water uptake is primary, particularly in sub-tropical to temperate ecosystems. Land surface models represent plant water stress in different ways, but most implement a water stress factor, β, which ranges linearly (more recently also curvilinearly) between β = 1 for unstressed vegetation and β = 0 at the wilting point, expressed in terms of volumetric water content ( θ ). β is most commonly used to either limit A or gs, and hence carbon and water fluxes, and a pertinent research question is whether these treatments are in fact interchangeable. Following Egea et al. (Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2011, 151 (10), 1,370–1,384) and Verhoef et al. (Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2014, 191, 22–32), we have implemented new β treatments, reflecting higher levels of biophysical complexity in a state-of-the-art LSM, Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, by allowing root zone soil moisture to limit plant function non-linearly and via individual routes (carbon assimilation, stomatal conductance, or mesophyll conductance) as well as any (non-linear) combinations thereof. The treatment of β does matter to the prediction of water and carbon fluxes: this study demonstrates that it represents a key structural uncertainty in contemporary LSMs, in terms of predictions of gross primary productivity, energy fluxes and soil moisture evolution, both in terms of climate means and response to a number of European droughts, including the 2003 heat wave. Treatments allowing ß to act on vegetation fluxes via stomatal and mesophyll routes are able to simulate the spatiotemporal variability in water use efficiency with higher fidelity during the growing season; they also support a broader range of ecosystem responses, e.g., those observed in regions that are radiation limited or water limited. We conclude that current practice in weather and climate modelling is inconsistent, as well as too simplistic, failing to credibly simulate vegetation response to soil water stress across the typical range of variability that is encountered for current European weather and climate conditions, including extremes of land surface temperature and soil moisture drought. A generalized approach performs better in current climate conditions and promises to be, based on responses to recently observed extremes, more trustworthy for predicting the impacts of 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Environmental ScienceSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207