Tropical forests and global change: biogeochemical responses and opportunities for cross‐site comparisons, an organized <scp>INSPIRE</scp> session at the 108<sup>th</sup> Annual Meeting, Ecological Society of America, Portland, Oregon, <scp>USA</scp>, August 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, tropical forests play a critical role in the global carbon (C) cycle. These ecosystems maintain the highest rates of net primary production (NPP) on Earth, contain c. 30% of terrestrial C stocks, and have some of the largest stores of fine-root biomass globally, as well as higher fine-root production and turnover rates compared with other biomes. Tropical forest responses to projected warming, altered rainfall regimes, and elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to be different from other ecosystems because of their unique characteristics (Box 1), making targeted research and model development important for understanding tropical forest–climate feedbacks. There is now a critical mass of long-term global change field experiments and modeling efforts in tropical forests, yet thus far there has been little synthesis, cross-site comparison, or multi-site standardized experimentation among tropical forests to help us understand how these biomes are changing. An organized INSPIRE session at the 108th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America set out to tackle just this. Speakers covered large-scale tropical forest field experiments and modeling efforts, with an emphasis on changes in ecosystem biogeochemistry under warming, drying, elevated atmospheric CO2, and changing nutrient status. In this Meeting report, we provide an overview of the large-scale global change experiments presented and highlight the main objectives and opportunities for tropical forest research that emerged, including cross-site comparisons and integration with ecosystem-scale models (Fig. 1).
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.006 |
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".