Did fires drive Holocene carbon sequestration in boreal ombrotrophic peatlands of eastern Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wildfire is an important factor on carbon sequestration in the North American boreal biomes. Being globally important stocks of organic carbon, peatlands may be less sensitive to burning in comparison with upland forests, especially wet unforested ombrotrophic ecosystems as found in northeastern Canada. We aimed to determine if peatland fires have driven carbon accumulation patterns during the Holocene. To cover spatial variability, six cores from three peatlands in the Eastmain region of Quebec were analyzed for stratigraphic charcoal accumulation. Results show that regional Holocene peatland fire frequency was ~ 2.4 fires 1000 yr− 1, showing a gradually declining trend since 4000 cal yr BP, although inter- and intra-peatland variability was very high. Charcoal peak magnitudes, however, were significantly higher between 1400 and 400 cal yr BP, possibly reflecting higher charcoal production driven by differential climatic forcing aspects. Carbon accumulation rates generally declined towards the late-Holocene with minimum values of ~ 10 g m− 2 yr− 1 around 1500 cal yr BP. The absence of a clear correlation between peatland fire regimes and carbon accumulation indicates that fire regimes have not been a driving factor on carbon sequestration at the millennial time scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".