Uncertainty and Emergent Constraints on Enhanced Ecosystem Carbon Stock by Land Greening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Significant land greening since the 1980s has been detected through satellite observation, forest inventory, and Earth system modeling. However, whether and to what extent global land greening enhances ecosystem carbon stock remains uncertain. Here, using 40 global models, we first detected a positive correlation between the terrestrial ecosystem carbon stock and leaf area index (LAI) over time. Then, we diagnose the source of uncertainty of simulated the sensitivities of ecosystem carbon stock to LAI based on a traceability analysis. We found that the sensitivity of gross primary productivity (GPP) to LAI is the largest contributor to the model uncertainty in more than 60% of the vegetated grids. Using the ensemble of four long‐term global data sets of GPP and three satellite LAI products from 1982 to 2014, we provided an emergent constraint on the ecosystem carbon stock increase as 0.75 ± 0.46 kg C m−2 per unit LAI over global land areas. Furthermore, the biome‐based results reveal that the tropical forest regions have the highest inter‐model variation and model bias. Overall, this study identifies the uncertainty source and provides constrained estimates of the greening effect on ecosystem carbon stock at the global scale.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".