Operational assessment tool for forest carbon dynamics for the United States: a new spatially explicit approach linking the LUCAS and CBM-CFS3 models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantifying the carbon balance of forested ecosystems has been the subject of intense study involving the development of numerous methodological approaches. Forest inventories, processes-based biogeochemical models, and inversion methods have all been used to estimate the contribution of U.S. forests to the global terrestrial carbon sink. However, estimates have ranged widely, largely based on the approach used, and no single system is appropriate for operational carbon quantification and forecasting. We present estimates obtained using a new spatially explicit modeling framework utilizing a "gain-loss" approach, by linking the LUCAS model of land-use and land-cover change with the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3). RESULTS: . Our results broadly agree with other studies using a variety of other methods to estimate the forest carbon sink. Climate variability and change was the primary driver of annual variability in the size of the net carbon sink, while land-use and land-cover change and disturbance were the primary drivers of the magnitude, reducing annual sink strength by 39%. Projections of carbon change under climate scenarios for the western U.S. find diverging estimates of carbon balance depending on the scenario. Under a moderate emissions scenario we estimated a 38% increase in the net sink of carbon, while under a high emissions scenario we estimated a reversal from a net sink to net source. CONCLUSIONS: The new approach provides a fully coupled modeling framework capable of producing spatially explicit estimates of carbon stocks and fluxes under a range of historical and/or future socioeconomic, climate, and land management futures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".