MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600612137 · doi:10.19189/map.2015.omb.216

Controls on plot-scale growing season CO2 and CH4 fluxes in restored peatlands: Do they differ from unrestored and natural sites?

2016· article· en· W2600612137 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMires and Peat · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of TechnologyMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Sphagnum Peat Moss AssociationAustralian Centre for GeomechanicsShell Canada
KeywordsPeatEnvironmental scienceNatural (archaeology)Growing seasonPlot (graphics)Scale (ratio)Hydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeologyEcologyMathematicsBiologyStatisticsCartographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study brings together plot-scale growing season fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from six Canadian peatlands restored by the moss layer transfer technique (MLTT) and compares them with fluxes from adjacent unrestored and natural peatlands to determine: 1) if CO2 and CH4 fluxes return to natural-site levels and 2) whether the ecohydrological controls (e.g. water table, plant cover) on these fluxes are similar between treatments. We also examine differences between eastern (humid/maritime climate) and western (sub-humid climate) Canadian plots, and between restoration of former horticultural peat extraction sites and oil industry well-pads. Our results indicate that restored site fluxes of CO2 and CH4 are not significantly different between eastern and western Canada or between a restored well-pad and restored horticultural peat extraction sites. Restoration resulted in gross primary production rates similar to those at natural plots and significantly greater than those at unrestored plots. Ecosystem respiration was not significantly different at restored and unrestored plots, and was lower at both than at natural plots. Methane emission was significantly greater at restored plots than at unrestored plots, but remained significantly lower on average than at natural plots. Water table was a significant control on CH4 flux across restored and natural plots. Vascular plant cover was significantly related to CO2 uptake (gross photosynthesis) at restored and unrestored plots, but not at natural plots, while higher moss cover resulted in significantly greater net uptake of CO2 at natural plots but not at restored and unrestored plots. Overall, MLTT restoration greatly alters CO2 and CH4 dynamics compared to unrestored areas but fluxes remain, on average, significantly different from those in natural peatlands, in both the magnitude of mean growing season fluxes and controls on variation in these fluxes among plots. Peatland restoration by MLTT results in reduced CO2 emissions and higher CH4 emissions; however, more year-round measurements in more restored peatlands over longer periods post-restoration are needed to improve greenhouse gas emission estimates for restored Canadian peatlands.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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