MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125040359 · doi:10.5194/bg-10-753-2013

Present state of global wetland extent and wetland methane modelling: conclusions from a model inter-comparison project (WETCHIMP)

2013· article· en· W2125040359 on OpenAlexaff
Joe R. Melton, R. Wania, E. L. Hodson, Benjamin Poulter, Bruno Ringeval, Renato Spahni, T. J. Bohn, C. A. Avis, David J. Beerling, G. Chen, А. В. Елисеев, S. N. Denisov, Peter O. Hopcroft, Dennis P. Lettenmaier, W. J. Riley, Joy Singarayer, Z. M. Subin, Hanqin Tian, S. Zürcher, Victor Brovkin, Peter M. van Bodegom, Thomas Kleinen, Zicheng Yu, Jed O. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchRussian Academy of SciencesMax-Planck-GesellschaftSight Research UKOffice of ScienceCompetence Center Environment and SustainabilityNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNatural Environment Research CouncilU.S. Department of EnergySchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWetlandEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasClimate changeForcing (mathematics)PrecipitationMethaneClimatologyGlobal warmingAtmospheric sciencesHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyEcologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Global wetlands are believed to be climate sensitive, and are the largest natural emitters of methane (CH4). Increased wetland CH4 emissions could act as a positive feedback to future warming. The Wetland and Wetland CH4 Inter-comparison of Models Project (WETCHIMP) investigated our present ability to simulate large-scale wetland characteristics and corresponding CH4 emissions. To ensure inter-comparability, we used a common experimental protocol driving all models with the same climate and carbon dioxide (CO2) forcing datasets. The WETCHIMP experiments were conducted for model equilibrium states as well as transient simulations covering the last century. Sensitivity experiments investigated model response to changes in selected forcing inputs (precipitation, temperature, and atmospheric CO2 concentration). Ten models participated, covering the spectrum from simple to relatively complex, including models tailored either for regional or global simulations. The models also varied in methods to calculate wetland size and location, with some models simulating wetland area prognostically, while other models relied on remotely sensed inundation datasets, or an approach intermediate between the two. Four major conclusions emerged from the project. First, the suite of models demonstrate extensive disagreement in their simulations of wetland areal extent and CH4 emissions, in both space and time. Simple metrics of wetland area, such as the latitudinal gradient, show large variability, principally between models that use inundation dataset information and those that independently determine wetland area. Agreement between the models improves for zonally summed CH4 emissions, but large variation between the models remains. For annual global CH4 emissions, the models vary by ±40% of the all-model mean (190 Tg CH4 yr−1). Second, all models show a strong positive response to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (857 ppm) in both CH4 emissions and wetland area. In response to increasing global temperatures (+3.4 °C globally spatially uniform), on average, the models decreased wetland area and CH4 fluxes, primarily in the tropics, but the magnitude and sign of the response varied greatly. Models were least sensitive to increased global precipitation (+3.9 % globally spatially uniform) with a consistent small positive response in CH4 fluxes and wetland area. Results from the 20th century transient simulation show that interactions between climate forcings could have strong non-linear effects. Third, we presently do not have sufficient wetland methane observation datasets adequate to evaluate model fluxes at a spatial scale comparable to model grid cells (commonly 0.5°). This limitation severely restricts our ability to model global wetland CH4 emissions with confidence. Our simulated wetland extents are also difficult to evaluate due to extensive disagreements between wetland mapping and remotely sensed inundation datasets. Fourth, the large range in predicted CH4 emission rates leads to the conclusion that there is both substantial parameter and structural uncertainty in large-scale CH4 emission models, even after uncertainties in wetland areas are accounted for.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations683
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207