Simulating <i>Ips typographus</i> L. outbreak dynamics and their influence on carbon balance estimates with ORCHIDEE r8627
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. New (a)biotic conditions resulting from climate change are expected to change disturbance dynamics, such as windthrow, forest fires, droughts, and insect outbreaks, and their interactions. These unprecedented natural disturbance dynamics might alter the capability of forest ecosystems to buffer atmospheric CO2 increases, potentially leading forests to transform from sinks into sources of CO2. This study aims to enhance the ORCHIDEE land surface model to study the impacts of climate change on the dynamics of the bark beetle, Ips typographus, and subsequent effects on forest functioning. The Ips typographus outbreak model is inspired by previous work from Temperli et al. (2013) for the LandClim landscape model. The new implementation of this model in ORCHIDEE r8627 accounts for key differences between ORCHIDEE and LandClim: (1) the coarser spatial resolution of ORCHIDEE; (2) the higher temporal resolution of ORCHIDEE; and (3) the pre-existing process representation of windthrow, drought, and forest structure in ORCHIDEE. Simulation experiments demonstrated the capability of ORCHIDEE to simulate a variety of post-disturbance forest dynamics observed in empirical studies. Through an array of simulation experiments across various climatic conditions and windthrow intensities, the model was tested for its sensitivity to climate, initial disturbance, and selected parameter values. The results of these tests indicated that with a single set of parameters, ORCHIDEE outputs spanned the range of observed dynamics. Additional tests highlighted the substantial impact of incorporating Ips typographus outbreaks on carbon dynamics. Notably, the study revealed that modeling abrupt mortality events as opposed to a continuous mortality framework provides new insights into the short-term carbon sequestration potential of forests under disturbance regimes by showing that the continuous mortality framework tends to overestimate the carbon sink capacity of forests in the 20- to 50-year range in ecosystems under high disturbance pressure compared to scenarios with abrupt mortality events. This model enhancement underscores the critical need to include disturbance dynamics in land surface models to refine predictions of forest carbon dynamics in a changing climate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".