MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385895939 · doi:10.5194/esd-14-767-2023

Evaluating nitrogen cycling in terrestrial biosphere models: a disconnect between the carbon and nitrogen cycles

2023· article· en· W4385895939 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth System Dynamics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of VictoriaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaDalhousie University
FundersGrand Équipement National De Calcul Intensif
KeywordsCyclingBiosphereNitrogen cycleTerrestrial ecosystemEnvironmental scienceCarbon cycleBiogeochemical cycleCarbon sequestrationBiogeochemistryBiosphere modelTemperate climateAtmospheric sciencesSink (geography)NitrogenCarbon sinkEcosystemEcologyBiologyCarbon dioxideChemistryGeologyGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration is limited by nitrogen (N), an empirically established constraint that could intensify under CO2 fertilization and future global change. The terrestrial C sink is estimated to currently sequester approximately a third of annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions based on an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models, which have been evaluated in their ability to reproduce observations of the C, water, and energy cycles. However, their ability to reproduce observations of N cycling and thus the regulation of terrestrial C sequestration by N have been largely unexplored. Here, we evaluate an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models with coupled C–N cycling and their performance at simulating N cycling, outlining a framework for evaluating N cycling that can be applied across terrestrial biosphere models. We find that models exhibit significant variability across N pools and fluxes, simulating different magnitudes and trends over the historical period, despite their ability to generally reproduce the historical terrestrial C sink. Furthermore, there are no significant correlations between model performance in simulating N cycling and model performance in simulating C cycling, nor are there significant differences in model performance between models with different representations of fundamental N cycling processes. This suggests that the underlying N processes that regulate terrestrial C sequestration operate differently across models and appear to be disconnected from C cycling. Models tend to overestimate tropical biological N fixation, vegetation C : N ratio, and soil C : N ratio but underestimate temperate biological N fixation relative to observations. However, there is significant uncertainty associated with measurements of N cycling processes given their scarcity (especially relative to those of C cycling processes) and their high spatiotemporal variability. Overall, our results suggest that terrestrial biosphere models that represent coupled C–N cycling could be overestimating C storage per unit N, which could lead to biases in projections of the future terrestrial C sink under CO2 fertilization and future global change (let alone those without a representation of N cycling). More extensive observations of N cycling processes and comparisons against experimental manipulations are crucial to evaluate N cycling and its impact on C cycling and guide its development in terrestrial biosphere models.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it