MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408428423 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-14338

Estimating the Tipping Point between N2O Emissions and C Sequestration in Soil using the DNDC v. CAN Model

2025· preprint· en· W4408428423 on OpenAlexaff
M. N. Kong, Huan Liu, Diego Ábalos, Brian Grant, Ward Smith, Azhar Zhartybayeva, Johannes Lund Jensen, Jørgen Eriksen, Christian Dold

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCarbon sequestrationSoil carbonGreenhouse gasArable landNitrous oxideBiomass (ecology)GrasslandCrop rotationCrop yieldAtmospheric sciencesAgronomySoil scienceCarbon dioxideCropSoil waterAgricultureChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing the grassland proportion in the crop rotation has been considered as an effective approach to sequester carbon (C) in the soil. However, its climate mitigation benefits may be overestimated because the associated impact of long-term C sequestration on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions remains uncertain. Mechanistic models, such as the DeNitrification and DeComposition model (DNDC v. CAN 9.5.0), are used to simulate changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) and N2O emissions. This provides the opportunity to estimate future emission trends and to enhance our understanding of the interactions between SOC and N2O emissions under different levels of grass/clover proportion in arable crop rotations. We hypothesize that increases in N2O emissions will offset the benefits from the increased SOC over time. The objectives of this study are to (1) calibrate and validate the DNDC model, and (2) estimate and predict the potential tipping point at which the negative climate forcing of N2O emissions offsets the benefits of C sequestration over long-term timescales. For this, we used long-term measurements of biomass, SOC, and N2O emissions from two crop rotations with either two or four years of grass-clover in a six-year rotation in Denmark. Preliminary results showed that the DNDC model simulated crop biomass production with fair to high accuracy as indicated by an index of agreement (d) of 0.98, a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 1, and a normalized root mean square error (nRMSE) of less than 30%. The simulated biomass was slightly underestimated as shown by a negative mean bias error (MBE). Conversely, the simulations for N2O fluxes and SOC exhibited poorer agreement, with d-values below 0.7 and nRMSE exceeding 30%. These findings suggest that while the DNDC model effectively predicts crop growth, including annual crops and grass/clover ley, its ability to simulate SOC and N2O fluxes requires substantial improvement. Our future efforts will focus on refining and optimizing model parameters for SOC and N2O, with an emphasis on calibration to enhance the model performance and the capacity to predict management-induced long-term dynamics under future climate scenarios. Results of these updated model simulations will be shown at the conference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→