Plant functional types, nutrients and hydrology drive carbon cycling along a transect in an anthropogenically altered Canadian peatland complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Peatlands play an important role in global carbon cycling, however, the response of peatland carbon fluxes to anthropogenically changed hydrologic conditions and long-term infiltration of nutrients is still understudied. Along a transect of 4 study sites, spanning from largely pristine to strongly altered conditions within the Wylde Lake peatland complex in Ontario (Canada), we monitored carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) fluxes at the soil/atmosphere interface and DIC and CH4 concentrations in the peat profiles from April 2014 through September 2015. Moreover, we applied δ13C-CH4 and δ13C-CO2 stable isotope abundance analyses to examine CH4 and CO2 production and consumption as well as the dominant CH4 emission pathways during the growing season of 2015. We found that a graminoid-moss dominated site, which was exposed to wet conditions and long-term infiltration of nutrients, was a great sink of CO2 (2260 ± 480 g CO2 m−2) but a great source of CH4 (61.4 ± 32 g CH4 m−2). Comparably low δ13C-CH4 signatures (−62.30 ± 5.54 ‰) indicated only low mitigation of CH4 emission by methanotrophic activity here. On the contrary, a shrub dominated site, which has been subjected to similarly high moisture conditions and loads of nutrients, was a much weaker sink of CO2 (1093 ± 794 g CO2 m−2) as compared with all other sites. The shrub dominated site featured notably low DIC concentrations in the peat as well as comparably 13C enriched CH4 (δ13C-CH4: −57.81 ± 7.03 ‰) and depleted CO2 (δ13C-CO2: −15.85 ± 3.61 ‰) in a more decomposed and surficial aerated peat, suggesting a higher share of CH4 oxidation. Plant mediated transport was the prevailing methane emission pathway throughout the summer of 2015 among all sites, even where graminoids covered only 10 % of the area. Our study provides insight into the accelerated carbon cycling of a strongly altered peatland and our results supported earlier findings, that strongly altered, shrub dominated peatlands may turn into weak carbon sinks or even sources, while a graminoid-moss dominance may maintain the peatland's carbon storage function.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".