Benthic and pelagic sources of carbon dioxide in boreal lakes and a young reservoir (Eastmain‐1) in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lakes and reservoirs typically emit CO2to the atmosphere as a result of respiration in excess of primary production. For reservoirs, this respiration is often assumed to be primarily of benthic origin, associated with drowned vegetation and soils. This study took measurements from a young hydroelectric reservoir (Eastmain‐1) in boreal Canada and nearby natural lakes to compare the rates of water column respiration and hypolimnetic CO2 accumulation during a stratified period. Reservoir water column respiration rates were significantly higher than those in natural lakes, with surface means of 61.4 ± 4.6 mg C m−3 d−1in Eastmain‐1 and 40.2 ± 3 mg C m−3 d−1 in lakes and profundal means of 58.1 ± 11 mg C m−3 d−1in Eastmain‐1 and 17.6 ± 7.5 mg C m−3 d−1 in lakes. Reservoir hypolimnetic CO2 accumulation rates were also higher than those in natural lakes, with means of 78.8 ± 16 mg C m−3 d−1in Eastmain‐1 and 19.8 ± 2.7 mg C m−3 d−1 in lakes. Our findings further indicate that the relative contribution of benthic respiration (estimated as the difference between hypolimnetic CO2 accumulation and water column respiration) toward total net CO2production during stratified periods was similar in both aquatic systems (23% in lakes, 27% in Eastmain‐1). By identifying the major role of the water column in the reservoir's CO2 production, this study calls for a significant paradigm shift away from the common assumption that reservoir CO2 emissions are predominantly the result of decaying vegetation in the benthic environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".