Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Litter decomposition is a vital part of the carbon cycle and is thoroughly studied both in the field and with models. Although temporally and spatially limited, litterbag decomposition experiments are often used to calibrate and evaluate soil models intended for use on large scales, coupled to a land model. We used the microbially explicit soil decomposition model MIMICS+ to replicate two high-latitude litterbag decomposition experiments of different spatial and temporal scales. We investigated how well the model represented observed mass loss in terms of the controlling factors climate and litter quality and their relative importance with time. In addition to default model forcing, we used measured and site-specific model-derived microclimatic variables (soil moisture and temperature), hypothesizing that this would improve model results. We found that MIMICS+ represented mass loss after three and six years well across a climatic gradient of Canadian sites, but had more variable results for one-year mass loss across a climate grid in Southern Norway. In terms of litter quality, the litter metabolic fraction was more influential on modeled mass loss than the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of the litter. Using alternative microclimate sources led to up to 25 % more mass remaining and down to 20 % less mass remaining compared to the simulations using default model input. None of the input alternatives significantly improved results compared to using the default model setup. We discuss possible causes for our findings and suggest measures to better utilize short-term field experiments to inform microbially explicit decomposition 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.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.575 | 0.428 |
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".