Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>sequestration in restored mined peatlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study comparing the net ecosystem CO2 exchange in natural, restored, and naturally regenerated peatlands assesses the significance of peatland restoration as a global biotic offset under the Kyoto Protocol. Maximum gross photosynthesis (GPmax) at the restored peatland (-17.5 g CO2 m-2 d-1) was more than two times that at lawns in the natural peatland (-8.2 g CO2 m-2 d-1) and almost three times that of the naturally regenerated peatland (-6.5 g CO2 m-2 d-1). However, GPmax at hummock sites (-18.1 g CO2 m-2 d-1) in the natural peatland exceeded that of the restored peatland. Total rainfall during the study period was ~75% of the 30-year mean and these drier conditions resulted in all sites being a net source of atmospheric CO2 during the summer. From May 5 to August 23, 1998 respiration followed the trend: mined (398 g C m-2) > restored (169 g C m-2) > natural (138 g C m-2) peatland. While restoration did not return the net carbon sink function, it resulted in a significant decrease in the source of atmospheric CO2 (229 g C m-2) over the summer season. Approximately 70% of this decrease was due to the increase in gross ecosystem production, while the remaining 30% was due to a decrease in total respiration. The presence of Sphagnum mosses at the naturally regenerated peatland also resulted in a ~45% decrease in total respiration (soil and plants), indicating that an increase in volumetric soil moisture content during restoration has the potential to lower soil respiration at abandoned mined peatlands. Considering the area of drained and mined peatlands globally, peatland restoration on abandoned mined peatlands has the potential to represent an important biotic offset through enhanced carbon sequestration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".