C:N:P stoichiometry of plants, soils, and microorganisms: Response to altered precipitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precipitation changes modify C, N, and P cycles, which regulate the functions and structure of terrestrial ecosystems. Although altered precipitation affects above- and belowground C:N:P stoichiometry, considerable uncertainties remain regarding plant-microbial nutrient allocation strategies under increased (IPPT) and decreased (DPPT) precipitation. We meta-analyzed 827 observations from 235 field studies to investigate the effects of IPPT and DPPT on the C:N:P stoichiometry of plants, soils, and microorganisms. DPPT reduced leaf C:N ratio, but increased the leaf and root N:P ratios reflecting stronger decrease of P compared with N mobility in soil under drought. IPPT increased microbial biomass C (+13%), N (+15%), P (26%), and the C:N ratio, whereas DPPT decreased microbial biomass N (-12%) and the N:P ratio. The C:N and N:P ratios of plant leaves were more sensitive to medium DPPT than to IPPT because drought increased plant N content, particularly in humid areas. The responses of plant and soil C:N:P stoichiometry to altered precipitation did not fit the double asymmetry model with a positive asymmetry under IPPT and a negative asymmetry under extreme DPPT. Soil microorganisms were more sensitive to IPPT than to DPPT, but they were more sensitive to extreme DPPT than extreme IPPT, consistent with the double asymmetry model. Soil microorganisms maintained stoichiometric homeostasis, whereas N:P ratios of plants follow that of the soils under altered precipitation. In conclusion, specific N allocation strategies of plants and microbial communities as well as N and P availability in soil critically mediate C:N:P stoichiometry by altered precipitation that need to be considered by prediction of ecosystem functions and C cycling under future climate change scenarios.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".