A novel representation of biological nitrogen fixation andcompetitive dynamics between nitrogen-fixing and non-fixing plantsin a land model (GFDL LM4.1-BNF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Representing biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) is an important challenge in the incorporation of nitrogen (N) cycling in land models. Initial representations of BNF in land models applied simplified phenomenological relationships. More recent representations of BNF are mechanistic and include the dynamic response of BNF to N limitation of plant growth. However, they generally do not include the competitive dynamics between N-fixing and non-fixing plants, which is a key ecological mechanism that determines ecosystem-scale symbiotic BNF. Furthermore, asymbiotic BNF is generally not included in land models. Here, we present LM4.1-BNF, a novel representation of BNF (asymbiotic and symbiotic) and an updated representation of N cycling in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Land Model 4.1 (LM4.1). LM4.1-BNF incorporates a mechanistic representation of asymbiotic BNF by soil microbes, a representation of the competitive dynamics between N-fixing and non-fixing plants, and distinct asymbiotic and symbiotic BNF temperature responses derived from corresponding observations. LM4.1-BNF makes reasonable estimations of major carbon (C) and N pools and fluxes and their temporal dynamics, in comparison to the previous version of LM4.1 with N cycling (LM3-SNAP) and to previous representations of BNF in land models generally (phenomenological representations and those without competitive dynamics between N-fixing and non-fixing plants and/or asymbiotic BNF). LM4.1-BNF can be applied to project the dynamic response of vegetation to N limitation of plant growth and the degree to which this will constrain the terrestrial C sink under elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration and other global change factors.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".