Summer fluxes of methane and carbon dioxide from a pond and floating mat in a continental Canadian peatland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Ponds smaller than 10 000 m2 likely account for about one-third of the global lake perimeter. The release of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) from these ponds is often high and significant on the landscape scale. We measured CO2 and CH4 fluxes in a temperate peatland in southern Ontario, Canada, in summer 2014 along a transect from the open water of a small pond (847 m2) towards the surrounding floating mat (5993 m2) and in a peatland reference area. We used a high-frequency closed chamber technique and distinguished between diffusive and ebullitive CH4 fluxes. CH4 fluxes and CH4 bubble frequency increased from a median of 0.14 (0.00 to 0.43) mmol m−2 h−1 and 4 events m−2 h−1 on the open water to a median of 0.80 (0.20 to 14.97) mmol m−2 h−1 and 168 events m−2 h−1 on the floating mat. The mat was a summer hot spot of CH4 emissions. Fluxes were 1 order of magnitude higher than at an adjacent peatland site. During daytime the pond was a net source of CO2 equivalents to the atmosphere amounting to 0.13 (−0.02 to 1.06) g CO2 equivalents m−2 h−1, whereas the adjacent peatland site acted as a sink of −0.78 (−1.54 to 0.29) g CO2 equivalents m−2 h−1. The photosynthetic CO2 uptake on the floating mat did not counterbalance the high CH4 emissions, which turned the floating mat into a strong net source of 0.21 (−0.11 to 2.12) g CO2 equivalents m−2 h−1. This study highlights the large small-scale variability of CH4 fluxes and CH4 bubble frequency at the peatland–pond interface and the importance of the often large ecotone areas surrounding small ponds as a source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".