Reconstructing a Fine Resolution Landscape of Annual Gross Primary Product (1895–2013) with Tree-Ring Indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low carbon management and policies should refer to local long-term inter-annual carbon uptake. However, most previous research has only focused on the quantity and spatial distribution of gross primary product (GPP) for the past 50 years because most satellite launches, the main GPP data source, were no earlier than 1980. We identified a close relationship between the tree-ring index (TRI) and vegetation carbon dioxide uptake (as measured by GPP) and then developed a nested TRI-GPP model to reconstruct spatially explicit GPP values since 1895 from seven tree-ring chronologies. The model performance in both phases was acceptable: We chose general regression neural network regression and random forest regression in Phase 1 (1895–1937) and Phase 2 (1938–1985). With the simulated and real GPP maps, we observed that the GPP for grassland and overall GPP were increasing. The GPP landscape patterns were stable, but in recent years, the GPP’s increasing rate surpassed any other period in the past 130 years. The main local climate driver was the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), and GPP had a significant positive correlation with PDSI in the growing season (June, July, and August). With the GPP maps derived from the nested TRI-GPP model, we can create fine-scale GPP maps to understand vegetation change and carbon uptake over the past century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".