MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CARBON DIOXIDE PRODUCTION FROM PEATLAND SOIL PROFILES: THE INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE, OXIC/ANOXIC CONDITIONS AND SUBSTRATE

2000· article· en· W2005833063 on OpenAlexaff
Debra Scanlon, Tim R. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnoxic watersPeatBogOmbrotrophicCarbon dioxideIncubationSubstrate (aquarium)Environmental chemistryAnimal scienceChemistryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We incubated intact peat cores from depth intervals of 5-15, 15-25, 25-35, and 35-45 cm from ombrotrophic bog, poor fen, and beaver pond margin sections of a cool-temperate peatland. CO2 production was measured over 12-day incubation periods at 4 and 14 °C and under oxic and anoxic conditions. Rates ranged from 0.06 to 0.66 mg CO2 g−1 dry peat d−1 under oxic conditions and from 0.002 to 0.098 mg CO2 g−1 d−1 under anoxic conditions, and rates generally decreased with depth in the profiles. When expressed on a volumetric basis, production rates ranged from 0.3 to 23.4 g CO2 m−3 d−1, and there was much less variation in CO2 production rates within profiles because the bulk density of peat increased with depth. The Q10 quotient, between 4 and 14 °C, ranged from 1.0 to 7.7, depending on sample and incubation conditions, with an average of 2.0 for oxic and 2.7 for anoxic conditions. Oxic:anoxic ratios averaged 7:1, 16:1, and 12:1 for the bog, poor fen, and beaver pond margin samples, respectively. Degree of decomposition (von Post index) was the substrate property most strongly correlated with CO2 production. Based on temperature and incubation data for the peat profiles to a depth of 45 cm, annual decomposition values (k) ranged from 0.016 to 0.060 yr−1 under oxic conditions and from 0.001 to 0.007 yr−1 under anoxic conditions. A model of CO2 emission from the three sites, based on the incubation data and thermal and water table regime, gave good agreement with measured in situ CO2 emission rates (r2 = 0.72, n = 18), although summer emission rates were underpredicted, possibly because of the absence of a root production component in the incubations or because of underestimation of CO2 production rates in field conditions above the water table.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations169
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil ScienceSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207