Decadal trends in the seasonal-cycle amplitude of terrestrial CO2 exchange resulting from the ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seasonal-cycle amplitude (SCA) of the atmosphere–ecosystem carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange rate is a useful metric of the responsiveness of the terrestrial biosphere to environmental variations. It is unclear, however, what underlying mechanisms are responsible for the observed increasing trend of SCA in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Using output data from the Multi-scale Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP), we investigated how well the SCA of atmosphere–ecosystem CO2 exchange was simulated with 15 contemporary terrestrial ecosystem models during the period 1901–2010. Also, we made attempt to evaluate the contributions of potential mechanisms such as atmospheric CO2, climate, land-use, and nitrogen deposition, through factorial experiments using different combinations of forcing data. Under contemporary conditions, the simulated global-scale SCA of the cumulative net ecosystem carbon flux of most models was comparable in magnitude with the SCA of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Results from factorial simulation experiments showed that elevated atmospheric CO2 exerted a strong influence on the seasonality amplification. When the model considered not only climate change but also land-use and atmospheric CO2 changes, the majority of the models showed amplification trends of the SCAs of photosynthesis, respiration, and net ecosystem production (+0.19 % to +0.50 % yr−1). In the case of land-use change, it was difficult to separate the contribution of agricultural management to SCA because of inadequacies in both the data and models. The simulated amplification of SCA was approximately consistent with the observational evidence of the SCA in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Large inter-model differences remained, however, in the simulated global tendencies and spatial patterns of CO2 exchanges. Further studies are required to identify a consistent explanation for the simulated and observed amplification trends, including their underlying mechanisms. Nevertheless, this study implied that monitoring of ecosystem seasonality would provide useful insights concerning ecosystem dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".