MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144047790 · doi:10.1002/hyp.7244

Evidence that piezometers vent gas from peat soils and implications for pore‐water pressure and hydraulic conductivity measurements

2009· article· en· W2144047790 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. M. Waddington, Scott J. Ketcheson, Erik Kellner, Maria Strack, Andy J. Baird

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiezometerPeatHydraulic conductivityPore water pressureSoil waterHydrology (agriculture)GroundwaterFlux (metallurgy)Environmental scienceGeologyMethaneSoil gasWater tableSoil scienceTRACERPermeameterAquiferChemistryGeotechnical engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Entrapped gas bubbles in peat can alter the buoyancy, storativity, void ratio and expansion/contraction properties of the peat. Moreover, when gas bubbles block water‐conducting pores they can significantly reduce saturated hydraulic conductivity and create zones of over‐pressuring, perhaps leading to an alteration in the magnitude and direction of groundwater flow and solute transport. Some previous researches have demonstrated that these zones of over‐pressuring are not observed by the measurements of pore‐water pressures using open‐pipe piezometers in peat; rather, they are only observed with pressure transducers sealed in the peat. In has been hypothesized that open‐pipe piezometers vent entrapped CH4 to the atmosphere and thereby do not permit the natural development of zones of entrapped gas. Here we present findings of the study to investigate whether piezometers vent subsurface CH4 to the atmosphere and whether the presence of piezometers alters the subsurface concentration of dissolved CH4. We measured the flux of methane venting from the piezometers and also determined changes in pore‐water CH4 concentration at a rich fen in southern Ontario and a poor fen in southern Quebec, in the summer of 2004. Seasonally averaged CH4 flux from piezometers was 1450 and 37·8‐mg CH4 m−2 d−1 at the southern Ontario site and Quebec site, respectively. The flux at the Ontario site was two orders of magnitude greater than the diffusive flux at the site. CH4 pore‐water concentrations were significantly lower in open piezometers than in water taken from sealed samplers at both the Ontario and Quebec sites. The flux of CH4 from piezometers decreased throughout the season suggesting that CH4 venting through the piezometer exceeded the rate of methanogenesis in the peat. Consequently we conclude that piezometers may alter the gas dynamics of some peatlands. We suggest that less‐invasive techniques (e.g. buried pressure transducers, tracer experiments) are needed for the accurate measurement of pore‐water pressures and hydraulic conductivity in peatlands with a large entrapped gas component. Furthermore, we argue that caution must be made in interpreting results from previous peatland hydrology studies that use these traditional methods. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207