MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392590318 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-4469

Blind spots hinder understanding of the tropical nitrogen cycle

2024· preprint· en· W4392590318 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Nelson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlind spotSpotsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligenceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our current understanding of the tropical terrestrial nitrogen (N) cycle has been shaped by decades of field-based research, predominately at a small subset of sites across the globe. These field data inform hypotheses on how N cycling is mediated by biotic and abiotic drivers, and inform the paradigm that tropical wet forests are characterized by high rates of N inputs and outputs compared with other systems, driven by high inorganic N availability. However, recent findings that do not seem to conform to this paradigm call into question how well the bulk of our underlying data represents the diversity of the tropics as a whole. We propose that there may be blind spots in our understanding of N cycling created by a paucity of sampling from areas where environmental factor combinations differ from those often studied. Identifying these blind spots may help to resolve which drivers can be generalized across the tropics as a whole, versus which sustain system heterogeneity. We conducted a pan-tropical synthesis of field sampling sites for N fixation and denitrification (two key processes that influence system N inputs and outputs, as a proxy for general understanding of N cycling) and sampling intensity between 1950 and 2022. As a metric of geographic biases in general understanding, we tallied citations counts for each study over time. We also collated globally gridded data for a range of factors hypothesized to control N cycling rates, including soil and climatic variables, productivity, topography, vegetation type, biogeographic region, and disturbance. With these data, we: 1) mapped major axes of variation in tropical environmental conditions using principal components, 2) determined the distribution of environmental variables within sampled sites versus the tropics as a whole, and 3) identified regions where unique combinations of conditions are under sampled.Preliminary results show a relative over-representation of evergreen broadleaf forests, and under-representation of grasslands and savannas. This corresponded to a proportional oversampling of sites with higher soil fertility (soil N and P), high net primary productivity, high rainfall, and low rainfall seasonality. To quantify system-level biases we also explored intra-biome sampling variability for factors such as fertility and elevation (e.g., tropical montane versus lowland forests). Denitrification and N fixation tended to follow similar patterns in site characteristics, suggesting that these metrics are a good proxy for overall N cycling understanding.Overall, our study identifies regions of the global tropics where environmental drivers are similar to those dictating existing knowledge, as well as understudied regions that should be targeted to explore system heterogeneity. Future work can leverage this information to design cross-system comparisons to explicitly test current hypothesized mechanisms to advance our understanding of the N cycle. Constraining nutrient availability and cycling in tropical ecosystems is especially important in the context of global change, where shifting environmental conditions may alter how forests cycle and retain N and, therefore, how nutrient limitation will constrain productivity responses to rising carbon dioxide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207