Biogeographic pattern of living vegetation carbon turnover time in mature forests across continents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Theoretically, woody biomass turnover time () quantified using outflux (i.e. tree mortality) predicts biomass dynamics better than using influx (i.e. productivity). This study aims at using forest inventory data to empirically test the outflux approach and generate a spatially explicit understanding of woody in mature forests. We further compared woody estimates with dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) and with a data assimilation product of C stocks and fluxes—CARDAMOM. Location Continents. Time Period Historic from 1951 to 2018. Major Taxa Studied Trees and forests. Methods We compared the approaches of using outflux versus influx for estimating woody and predicting biomass accumulation rates. We investigated abiotic and biotic drivers of spatial woody and generated a spatially explicit map of woody at a 0.25‐degree resolution across continents using machine learning. We further examined whether six DGVMs and CARDAMOM generally captured the observational pattern of woody . Results Woody quantified by the outflux approach better (with R2 0.4–0.5) predicted the biomass accumulation rates than the influx approach (with R2 0.1–0.4) across continents. We found large spatial variations of woody for mature forests, with highest values in temperate forests (98.8 ± 2.6 y) followed by boreal forests (73.9 ± 3.6 y) and tropical forests. The map of woody extrapolated from plot data showed higher values in wetter eastern and pacific coast USA, Africa and eastern Amazon. Climate (temperature and aridity index) and vegetation structure (tree density and forest age) were the dominant drivers of woody across continents. The highest woody in temperate forests was not captured by either DGVMs or CARDAMOM. Main Conclusions Our study empirically demonstrated the preference of using outflux over influx to estimate woody for predicting biomass accumulation rates. The spatially explicit map of woody and the underlying drivers provide valuable information to improve the representation of forest demography and carbon turnover processes in DGVMs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".