Nitrogen dynamics in floating and non-floating peatlands in the Western Boreal Plain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall objective of this study was to measure the major nitrogen pools and fluxes in nutrient- and peat-rich, vegetated marshes and fens surrounding shallow ponds in the Western Boreal Plain (WBP) of Canada. Within the same peatland-pond complex, marshes and fens did not differ from each other in major N fluxes and pool sizes; however, significant differences in N dynamics were measured between different peatland-ponds. Specifically, N cycling rates (gross and net mineralization) were much greater in a floating peatland than in a non-floating peatland. Gross N mineralization rates were 59 and 453 mg N m-2 d-1 in the non-floating and floating peatlands, respectively. Gross ammonification rates were approximately 4–10 times net rates while gross nitrification rates were 500–800 times net rates, indicating rapid turnover of extractable inorganic N pools. Increased moisture and carbon in the floating peat supported higher microbial biomass and activity, however net primary production values were lower, presumably due to competition by microbes for available inorganic N. Monthly measurements of N fluxes were combined to provide an estimate of annual internal N cycling within marshes and fens surrounding shallow ponds in the WBP. Key words: Gross mineralization, microbial biomass, nitrogen, peatland
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".