Modeling the effects of hydrology on ecosystem respiration at Mer Bleue bog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theecosysmodel was applied to examine the effects of peatland hydrology on soil respiration and ecosystem respiration at Mer Bleue peatland, Ontario, Canada. It was hypothesized that a decrease in near‐surface microbial respiration in peat hummocks resulting from water table (WT) drawdown and subsequent desiccation of the uppermost peat would offset an increase of soil respiration at depth with improved aeration (respiration offsetting mechanism). In contrast, shallower water table in hollows would not allow near‐surface desiccation to offset increased soil respiration at depth during drying. However, increased hollow soil respiration with WT drawdown would be offset by decreased aboveground moss respiration with near‐surface desiccation in hummocks. Model results for microbial respiration were tested against independent laboratory experiments and ecosystem respiration against hourly eddy‐covariance measurements of bog CO2exchange from 2000 to 2004. The respiration offsetting mechanism modeled in hummocks resulted in CO2production of 0.85μmol CO2m−2s−1with both low (67 cm) and intermediate (38 cm) water tables in the summers of 2001 and 2004, and of 0.81μmol CO2m−2s−1and 0.95μmol CO2m−2s−1with high (31 cm) and intermediate (41 cm) water tables in the summers of 2000 and 2001. Ecosystem respiration was 2.01μmol CO2m−2s−1and 2.23μmol CO2m−2s−1, and 2.62μmol CO2m−2s−1and 2.58μmol CO2m−2s−1, respectively, during these periods. Our results suggest that ecosystem respiration at Mer Bleue varied little with water table, but this behavior may not be typical for other peatlands.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".