Ideas and perspectives: why Holocene thermokarst sediments of the Yedoma region do not increase the northern peatland carbon pool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Permafrost deposits in the Beringian Yedoma region store large amounts of organic carbon (OC). Walter Anthony et al. (2014) describe a previously unrecognized pool of 159 Pg OC accumulated in Holocene thermokarst sediments deposited in Yedoma region alases (thermokarst depressions). They claim that these alas sediments increase the previously recognized circumpolar permafrost peat OC pool by 50 %. It is stated that previous integrated studies of the permafrost OC pool have failed to account for these deposits because the Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database (NCSCD) is biased towards non-alas field sites and that the soil maps used in the NCSCD underestimate coverage of organic permafrost soils. Here we evaluate these statements against a brief literature review, existing datasets on Yedoma region soil OC storage and independent field-based and geospatial datasets of peat soil distribution in the Siberian Yedoma region. Our findings are summarised in three main points. Firstly, the sediments described by Walter Anthony et al. are primarily mineral lake sediments and do not match widely used international scientific definitions of peat or organic soils. They can therefore not be considered an addition to the circumpolar peat carbon pool. Secondly, independent field data and geospatial analyses show that the Siberian Yedoma regions is dominated by mineral soils, not peatlands. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest any systematic bias in the NCSCD field data or maps. Thirdly, there is spatial overlap between these Holocene thermokarst sediments and previous estimates of permafrost soil and sediment OC stocks. These carbon stocks were already accounted for by previous studies and cannot be added to the permafrost OC count. We suggest that statements made in Walter Anthony et al. (2014) resulted from misunderstandings caused by conflicting definitions and terminologies across different geoscientific disciplines. A careful cross-disciplinary review of terminologies would help future studies to appropriately harmonize definitions between different fields.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".