On the relationship between water table depth and water vapor and carbon dioxide fluxes in a minerotrophic fen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The focus of this study is the relationship between water table depth (WTD) and water vapor [evapotranspiration (ET)] and carbon dioxide [CO2; net ecosystem exchange (NEE)] fluxes in a fen in western Canada. We analyzed hydrological and eddy covariance measurements from four snow‐free periods (2003–2006) with contrasting meteorological conditions to establish the link between daily WTD and ET and gross ecosystem CO2 exchange (GEE) and ecosystem respiration (Reco; NEE=Reco−GEE), respectively: 2003 was warm and dry, 2004 was cool and wet, and 2005 and 2006 were both wet. In 2003, the water table (WT) was below the ground surface. In 2004, the WT rose above the ground surface, and in 2005 and 2006, the WT stayed well above the ground surface. There were no significant differences in total ET (∼316 mm period−1), but total NEE was significantly different (2003: 8 g C m−2 period−1; 2004: −139 g C m−2 period−1; 2005: −163 g C m−2 period−1; 2006: −195 g C m−2 period−1), mostly due to differences in total GEE (2003: 327 g C m−2 period−1; 2004: 513 g C m−2 period−1; 2005: 411 g C m−2 period−1; 2006: 556 g C m−2 period−1). Variation in ET is mostly explained by radiation (67%), and the contribution of WTD is only minor (33%). WTD controls the compensating contributions of different land surface components, resulting in similar total ET regardless of the hydrological conditions. WTD and temperature each contribute about half to the explained variation in GEE up to a threshold ponding depth, below which temperature alone is the key explanatory variable. WTD is only of minor importance for the variation in Reco, which is mainly controlled by temperature. Our study implies that future peatland modeling efforts explicitly consider topographic and hydrogeological influences on WTD.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".