Demographic but not competitive time lags can transiently amplify climate‐induced changes in vegetation carbon storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How terrestrial ecosystems will accumulate carbon as the climate continues to change is a major source of uncertainty in projections of future climate. Under growth-stimulating environmental change, time lags inherent in population and community dynamic processes have been posed to dampen, or alternatively amplify, short-term carbon gain in terrestrial vegetation, but these outcomes can be difficult to predict. To theoretically frame this problem, we developed a simple model of vegetation dynamics that identifies the stage-structured demographic and competitive processes that could govern the timescales of carbon storage and loss. We show that demographic lags associated with growth-stimulating environmental change can allow a rapid increase in population-level carbon storage that is lost back to the atmosphere in later years. However, this transient carbon storage only emerges when environmental change increases the transition of adult individuals into a larger size class that suffers markedly higher mortality. Otherwise, demographic lags simply slow carbon accumulation. Counterintuitively, an analogous tradeoff between maximum adult size and survivorship in two-species models, coupled with environmental change-driven replacement, does not generate the transient carbon gain seen in the single-species models. Instead lags in competitive replacement slow the approach to the eventual carbon trajectory. Together, our results suggest that time lags inherent in demographic and compositional turnover tend to slow carbon accumulation in systems responding to growth-stimulating environmental change. Only under specific conditions will lagged demographic processes in such systems drive transient carbon accumulation, conditions that investigators can examine in nature to help project future carbon trajectories.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".