Large Carbon Dioxide Fluxes from Headwater Boreal and Sub-Boreal Streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Half of the world's forest is in boreal and sub-boreal ecozones, containing large carbon stores and fluxes. Carbon lost from headwater streams in these forests is underestimated. We apply a simple stable carbon isotope idea for quantifying the CO2 loss from these small streams; it is based only on in-stream samples and integrates over a significant distance upstream. We demonstrate that conventional methods of determining CO2 loss from streams necessarily underestimate the CO2 loss with results from two catchments. Dissolved carbon export from headwater catchments is similar to CO2 loss from stream surfaces. Most of the CO2 originating in high CO2 groundwaters has been lost before typical in-stream sampling occurs. In the Harp Lake catchment in Canada, headwater streams account for 10% of catchment net CO2 uptake. In the Krycklan catchment in Sweden, this more than doubles the CO2 loss from the catchment. Thus, even when corrected for aquatic CO2 loss measured by conventional methods, boreal and sub-boreal forest carbon budgets currently overestimate carbon sequestration on the landscape.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".