China's Terrestrial Carbon Sink Over 2010–2015 Constrained by Satellite Observations of Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> and Land Surface Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The magnitude and distribution of China's terrestrial carbon sink remain uncertain due to insufficient constraints at large scales, whereby satellite data offer great potential for reducing the uncertainty. Here, we present two carbon sink estimates for China constrained either by satellite CO 2 column concentrations (XCO 2 ) within the Global Carbon Assimilation System or by remotely sensed soil moisture and Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR) in addition to in situ CO 2 observations within the Carbon Cycle Data Assimilation System. They point to a moderate size of carbon sinks of 0.34 ± 0.14 (mean ± unc.) and 0.43 ± 0.09 PgC/yr during 2010–2015, which are supported by an inventory‐based estimate for forest and soil carbon sink (0.26 PgC/yr) and fall in the range of contemporary ensemble atmospheric inversions (0.25–0.48 PgC/yr). They also agree reasonably well on interannual variations, which reflect the carbon sink anomalies induced by regional droughts in southwest China. Furthermore, their spatial distributions are broadly consistent that of the forest inventory‐based estimate, indicating that the largest carbon sinks locate in central and eastern China. Their estimates for forest carbon sink coincide fairly well with the inventory‐based estimate across different regions, especially when aggregated to the north and south of China. Although enhanced recently by afforestation, China's carbon sink was also significantly weakened by regional droughts, which were often not fully represented in previous in situ CO 2 ‐based inversions due to insufficient observations. Our results suggest that satellite‐based atmospheric CO 2 and land surface observations are vital in characterizing terrestrial net carbon fluxes at regional scales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".