Quantifying peat carbon accumulation in Alaska using a process‐based biogeochemistry model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study uses an integrated modeling framework that couples the dynamics of hydrology, soil thermal regime, and ecosystem carbon and nitrogen to quantify the long‐term peat carbon accumulation in Alaska during the Holocene. Modeled hydrology, soil thermal regime, carbon pools and fluxes, and methane emissions are evaluated using observation data at several peatland sites in Minnesota, Alaska, and Canada. The model is then applied for a 10,000 year (15 ka to 5 ka; 1 ka = 1000 cal years before present) simulation at four peatland sites. We find that model simulations match the observed carbon accumulation rates at fen sites during the Holocene ( R 2 = 0.88, 0.87, 0.38, and −0.05 using comparisons in 500 year bins). The simulated (2.04 m) and observed peat depths (on average 1.98 m) were also compared well ( R 2 = 0.91). The early Holocene carbon accumulation rates, especially during the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM) (35.9 g C m − 2 yr − 1 ), are estimated up to 6 times higher than the rest of the Holocene (6.5 g C m − 2 yr − 1 ). Our analysis suggests that high summer temperature and the lengthened growing season resulted from the elevated insolation seasonality, along with wetter‐than‐before conditions might be major factors causing the rapid carbon accumulation in Alaska during the HTM. Our sensitivity tests indicate that, apart from climate, initial water table depth and vegetation canopy are major drivers to the estimated peat carbon accumulation. When the modeling framework is evaluated for various peatland types in the Arctic, it can quantify peatland carbon accumulation at regional scales.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".