MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609854279 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12891

Predicting peatland carbon fluxes from non‐destructive plant traits

2017· article· en· W2609854279 on OpenAlex
Ellie M. Goud, Tim R. Moore, Nigel T. Roulet

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

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPeatEvergreenHerbaceous plantMicrositeEcosystemEcologySpecific leaf areaAerenchymaCarbon cycleTemperate climateWoody plantBotanyPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Determining the plant traits that best predict carbon (C) storage is increasingly important as global change drivers will affect plant species composition and ecosystem C cycling. Despite the critical role of peatlands in the global C cycle, trait–flux relationships in peatlands are relatively unknown. We assessed the ability of four non‐destructive plant traits to predict carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) and methane ( CH 4 ) fluxes over two growing seasons in a temperate peatland in Ontario, Canada. We examined relationships between C‐fluxes and leaf area, leaf persistence (deciduous, evergreen), growth form (woody, herbaceous) and aerenchyma tissue. To explore potential inconsistencies between different scales of data aggregation, traits were analysed at the level of plots, species and microsites. CO 2 fluxes showed a positive relationship with leaf area and leaf persistence, and a negative relationship with proportion of woody species. CH 4 fluxes showed a positive relationship with aerenchyma and leaf area. The significance of trait–flux relationships differed based on whether data were averaged at the level of plot, species or microsite. We recommend applying leaf area as a non‐destructive trait to other systems where it is not ideal to measure traits destructively. A better understanding of the relationships between above and below‐ground traits is likely needed to further explain variation in ecosystem respiration and CH 4 fluxes from plant traits. A lay summary is available for this article.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.192 · 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