MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586589205 · doi:10.1029/2010wr009492

Groundwater residence time distributions in peatlands: Implications for peat decomposition and accumulation

2011· article· en· W1586589205 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul J. Morris, J. M. Waddington

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
KeywordsPeatEnvironmental scienceGroundwaterSoil scienceSoil waterCarbon cycleHydrology (agriculture)Pore water pressureCarbon fibersCarbon dioxideResidence time (fluid dynamics)Environmental chemistryGeologyChemistryEcologyEcosystemMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peat soils consist of poorly decomposed plant detritus, preserved by low decay rates, and deep peat deposits are globally significant stores in the carbon cycle. High water tables and low soil temperatures are commonly held to be the primary reasons for low peat decay rates. However, recent studies suggest a thermodynamic limit to peat decay, whereby the slow turnover of peat soil pore water may lead to high concentrations of phenols and dissolved inorganic carbon. In sufficient concentrations, these chemicals may slow or even halt microbial respiration, providing a negative feedback to peat decay. We document the analysis of a simple, one‐dimensional theoretical model of peatland pore water residence time distributions (RTDs). The model suggests that broader, thicker peatlands may be more resilient to rapid decay caused by climate change because of slow pore water turnover in deep layers. Even shallow peat deposits may also be resilient to rapid decay if rainfall rates are low. However, the model suggests that even thick peatlands may be vulnerable to rapid decay under prolonged high rainfall rates, which may act to flush pore water with fresh rainwater. We also used the model to illustrate a particular limitation of the diplotelmic (i.e., acrotelm and catotelm) model of peatland structure. Model peatlands of contrasting hydraulic structure exhibited identical water tables but contrasting RTDs. These scenarios would be treated identically by diplotelmic models, although the thermodynamic limit suggests contrasting decay regimes. We therefore conclude that the diplotelmic model be discarded in favor of model schemes that consider continuous variation in peat properties and processes.

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)0.001
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207