MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sources and sinks of carbon in boreal ecosystems of interior Alaska: A review

2014· review· en· W1997529775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas A. Douglas, Miriam C. Jones, C. A. Hiemstra, J. R. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueElementa Science of the Anthropocene · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePermafrostBorealCarbon sinkCarbon cycleEcosystemSoil carbonTaigaBoreal ecosystemDisturbance (geology)Climate changeVegetation (pathology)Carbon sequestrationGlobal warmingGreenhouse gasEcologyCarbon dioxideSoil waterSoil scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Boreal ecosystems store large quantities of carbon but are increasingly vulnerable to carbon loss due to disturbance and climate warming. The boreal region in Alaska and Canada, largely underlain by discontinuous permafrost, presents a challenging landscape for itemizing carbon sources and sinks in soil and vegetation. The roles of fire, forest succession, and the presence (or absence) of permafrost on carbon cycle, vegetation, and hydrologic processes have been the focus of multidisciplinary research in boreal ecosystems for the past 20 years. However, projections of a warming future climate, an increase in fire severity and extent, and the potential degradation of permafrost could lead to major landscape and carbon cycle changes over the next 20 to 50 years. To assist land managers in interior Alaska in adapting and managing for potential changes in the carbon cycle we developed this review paper by incorporating an overview of the climate, ecosystem processes, vegetation, and soil regimes. Our objective is to provide a synthesis of the most current carbon storage estimates and measurements to guide policy and land management decisions on how to best manage carbon sources and sinks. We surveyed estimates of aboveground and belowground carbon stocks for interior Alaska boreal ecosystems and summarized methane and carbon dioxide fluxes. These data have been converted into similar units to facilitate comparison across ecosystem compartments. We identify potential changes in the carbon cycle with climate change and human disturbance. A novel research question is how compounding disturbances affect carbon sources and sinks associated with boreal ecosystem processes. Finally, we provide recommendations to address the challenges facing land managers in efforts to manage carbon cycle processes. The results of this study can be used for carbon cycle management in other locations within the boreal biome which encompasses a broad distribution from 45° to 83° north.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementa Science of the AnthropoceneSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207