MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387569405 · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-42099-4

An early warning signal for grassland degradation on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau

2023· article· en· W4387569405 on OpenAlexaff
Qiuan Zhu, Huai Chen, Changhui Peng, Jinxun Liu, Shilong Piao, Jin He, Shiping Wang, Xinquan Zhao, Jiang Zhang, Xiuqin Fang, Jiaxin Jin, Qi‐En Yang, Liliang Ren, Yanfen Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGrassland degradationGrasslandGrazingStockingEnvironmental sciencePlateau (mathematics)Stocking rateEcosystemClimate changeEcologyPhysical geographyGeographyBiologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intense grazing may lead to grassland degradation on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, but it is difficult to predict where this will occur and to quantify it. Based on a process-based ecosystem model, we define a productivity-based stocking rate threshold that induces extreme grassland degradation to assess whether and where the current grazing activity in the region is sustainable. We find that the current stocking rate is below the threshold in ~80% of grassland areas, but in 55% of these grasslands the stocking rate exceeds half the threshold. According to our model projections, positive effects of climate change including elevated CO 2 can partly offset negative effects of grazing across nearly 70% of grasslands on the Plateau, but only in areas below the stocking rate threshold. Our analysis suggests that stocking rate that does not exceed 60% (within 50% to 70%) of the threshold may balance human demands with grassland protection in the face of climate change.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations196
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207