Do pool surface area and depth control CO<sub>2</sub> and CH<sub>4</sub> fluxes from an ombrotrophic raised bog, James Bay, Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the exchange of CO2 and CH4 and the surface area and depth of 16 pools on a northern peatland was investigated over 2 years. Differences in carbon gas emissions were found, with small, shallow pools (<1000 m2, <0.45 m) having consistently larger CO2 and CH4 fluxes of 0.35 ± 0.47 g C m−2 d−1 and 0.31 ± 0.69 g C m−2 d−1, respectively. Average CH4 fluxes decreased with increasing pool depth and were between 1 and 5 times larger from shallow pools (0.3 m, p < 0.001) than from deeper pools (0.7 m). Average CO2 fluxes also generally decreased with increasing pool depth and were between 1 and 4 times larger from shallower pools (0.3 m, 0.45 m, p < 0.004) than from deeper pools (0.75 m). Average pool C‐CO2 losses in 2005 were approximately 3 to 30 times lower (0.11 g C m−2) than dark respiration CO2 losses from the adjacent vegetated section of the peatland. All pools, regardless of size, were atmospheric sources of CO2 and CH4 over the sampling period at an average emission ratio of 1C‐CO2:1.5C‐CH4, with total carbon losses of 20.1 g C m−2 and 29.6 g C m−2 over 2004 and 2005. Consistently larger fluxes to atmosphere of both CO2 and CH4 from shallow pools (<0.45 m) suggest that enhanced decomposition could be occurring, accounting for the differences in carbon gas exchange.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".