MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134237803 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/6/065006

Carbon dioxide and methane exchange at a cool-temperate freshwater marsh

2015· article· en· W2134237803 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian B. Strachan, Kelly A. Nugent, Stephanie Crombie, Marie‐Claude Bonneville

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEddy covarianceEnvironmental scienceMarshWetlandTemperate climateEcosystemCarbon dioxideEcosystem respirationTyphaAtmospheric sciencesCarbon sinkHydrology (agriculture)Carbon cycleEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freshwater marshes have been shown to be strong sinks for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) on an annual basis relative to other wetland types; however it is likely that these ecosystems are also strong emitters of methane (CH 4 ), reducing their carbon (C) sequestration potential. Multiyear C balances in these ecosystems are necessary therefore to determine their contribution to the global C cycle. Despite this, the number of multiyear studies in marshes is few, with, to the best of our knowledge, only one other Northern marsh C balance reported. This study presents five years of eddy covariance flux measurements of CO 2 , and four years of warm-season chamber measurements of CH 4 at a cool-temperate Typha angustifolia marsh. Annual average cumulative net ecosystem exchange of CO 2 (NEE) at the marsh was −224 ± 54 g C m −2 yr −1 (±SD) over the five-year period, ranging from −126 to −284 g C m −2 yr −1 . Enhancement of the ecosystem respiration during warmer spring, autumn and winter periods appeared the strongest determinant of annual NEE totals. Warm season fluxes of CH 4 from the Typha vegetation (avg. 1.0 ± 1.2 g C m −2 d −1 ) were significantly higher than fluxes from the water surface (0.5 ± 0.4 g C m −2 d −1 ) and unvegetated mats (0.2 ± 0.2 g C m −2 d −1 ). Air temperature was a primary driver of all CH 4 fluxes, while water table was not a significant correlate as water levels were always at or above the vegetative mat surfaces. Weighting by the surface cover proportion of water and vegetation yielded a net ecosystem CH 4 emission of 127 ± 19 g C m −2 yr −1 . Combining CO 2 and CH 4 , the annual C sink at the Mer Bleue marsh was reduced to −97 ± 57 g C m −2 yr −1 , illustrating the importance of accounting for CH 4 when generating marsh C budgets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207