MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406481050 · doi:10.1080/27669645.2025.2450943

Land use cover changes abated terrestrial ecosystem carbon sink in China during the past four decades

2025· article· en· W4406481050 on OpenAlexaff
Xueqing Jiang, Jinxun Liu, Changhui Peng, Huai Chen, Le Wang, Dongxue Yu, Qiuan Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueAll Earth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCarbon sinkLand coverTerrestrial ecosystemEcosystemLand useSink (geography)Cover (algebra)ChinaCarbon cycleCarbon fibersEcologyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in land use and cover can strongly affect terrestrial carbon balance, which in turn can affect the calculation of carbon sinks that will keep future temperature within desired limits. Understanding how changes in land use and cover influence carbon sinks is challenging. Here, we simulated net carbon balance across China with full consideration of land use and land cover between 1981 and 2020 using the dynamic global vegetation model. The results indicated that carbon sink of terrestrial ecosystem in China have grown steadily particularly since 2001, the average values of the net primary productivity, net ecosystem productivity and net biome productivity were 3317 TgC • yr−1, 325 TgC • yr−1 and 70 TgC • yr−1. However, during the period, changes in land use and cover cumulatively reduced net primary productivity by 1,353.00 TgC, net ecosystem productivity by 1,290.71 TgC and net biome productivity by 226.93 TgC. Land use and cover changes have created a carbon source effect which abated terrestrial ecosystem carbon sink in China since 1981. Our findings may help guide policies to regulate land use in order to help China achieve carbon neutrality in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAll EarthSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207