Holocene carbon accumulation rates from three ombrotrophic peatlands in boreal Quebec, Canada: Impact of climate-driven ecohydrological change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the processes controlling peatland carbon (C) sequestration is critical to anticipate potential changes in the global C cycle in response to climate change. Although identification of these factors may be relatively straightforward on seasonal timescales, at centennial to millennial timescales complexities arise because of interactions between climate, vegetation, hydrology and long-term ecological processes. To better understand the factors controlling long-term C accumulation, Holocene rates of C sequestration were quantified from three pristine ombrotrophic peatlands in boreal Quebec, northeastern Canada (52°N, 75–76°W). Bulk density and loss-on-ignition analyses, combined with radiocarbon dating and age–depth modelling, were used to estimate long-term apparent rates of carbon accumulation. Past changes in vegetation and water-table depth were obtained from plant macrofossil and testate amoeba analysis. Earliest regional peat accumulation started ~7520 cal. BP, with long-term rates of C sequestration varying between 14.9 and 22.6 g/m 2 per yr. High C sequestration rates occurred during the mid Holocene when relatively stable Sphagnum section Acutifolia communities were present, while low rates were found during the cooler late Holocene when Cyperaceae and ligneous vegetation were more dominant. However, C sequestration was highly variable among cores, implying that local topography, geomorphology and hydrology, or disturbance factors such as fire, mediate the influence of climate on C accumulation. Reconstructed water-table depths reveal several dry shifts since 3000 cal. BP, suggesting that episodic cold and dry conditions during the late Holocene may have contributed to lower C sequestration rates. Given the intensity of the water-table shifts at these times, we hypothesize that recurrent episodes of frozen subsurface peat might have intensified surface drying. As projected by climate scenarios, anticipated warmer and wetter conditions may lead to greater stability of hummock Sphagna cover and increased C sequestration potential in boreal 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".