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 CO 2 to 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 CO 2 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 −1 in 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 −1 in Eastmain‐1 and 17.6 ± 7.5 mg C m −3 d −1 in lakes. Reservoir hypolimnetic CO 2 accumulation rates were also higher than those in natural lakes, with means of 78.8 ± 16 mg C m −3 d −1 in 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 CO 2 accumulation and water column respiration) toward total net CO 2 production 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 CO 2 production, this study calls for a significant paradigm shift away from the common assumption that reservoir CO 2 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 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".