Carbon Accumulation and Storage in Mineral Subsoil beneath Peat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We showed that sandy subsoils beneath peat near Ramsey Lake, MI, contained 7.5 to 8.0 kg organic C (OC) m −2 to a depth of 70 cm, compared with 1.6 to 3.6 kg m −2 in adjacent forest soils, from which the peatland had evolved through paludification. Compared with the soils beneath the forest, those beneath the peat contained similar amounts of oxalate‐extractable Al (Al o ) and less Fe, owing to loss of Fe under reduced leached conditions beneath the peat. Most of the extractable Al in the mineral horizons beneath peat was organically bound. Atomic pyrophosphate‐extractable (Fe p + Al p ) Fe + Al/C ratios were smaller (<0.2:1) in the mineral horizons beneath peat than in the forest mineral subsoils (generally >0.2:1), indicating larger inputs and retention in the mineral subsoils beneath peat. Concentration of OC in subsoil samples was strongly ( r 2 = 0.58, p < 0.001) related to the subsoil Al, null‐point dissolved organic C (DOC) and clay concentrations. A DOC sorption study using peat pore water ranging from 0 to 117 mg DOC L −1 revealed null‐point DOC (DOC np ) concentrations (at which there is neither gain nor loss of OC by the soil) varied from <1 to 417 mg DOC L −1 and was primarily related to Fe o (negatively), Al o (negatively), and C (positively). We suggest that the increase in mineral subsoil OC beneath peat is related to the sorption of DOC carried by pore water percolating through the mineral subsoil, combined with slow rates of mineralization of sorbed DOC under anoxic conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".