MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789928346 · doi:10.1002/eco.1976

Quantifying peat hydrodynamic properties and their influence on water table depths in peatlands of southern Quebec (Canada)

2018· article· en· W2789928346 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marc‐André Bourgault, Marie Larocque, Michelle Garneau, Marjolaine Roux

Bibliographic record

VenueEcohydrology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNature Conservancy of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsPeatWater tableTable (database)Environmental scienceSoil scienceHumusBulk densityHydrology (agriculture)Hydraulic conductivityGeologyEcologySoil waterGroundwater

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Water table depth in peatlands is strongly linked to physical properties of the peat, such as density (ρ dry ), peat composition and humification, hydraulic conductivity (K), and specific yield (S y ). Dry bulk density and peat depth are commonly used as indicators of K in ecohydrological models. However, no mathematical relationship exists to quantify S y based on K and ρ dry . As a result, ecohydrological models cannot explicitly reproduce the strong buffering capacity of peatlands. The objectives of this study were to analyse the literature‐reported mathematical link between all the physical properties to develop new mathematical relationships between these parameters and to evaluate whether variations in the physical properties of the peat control water table depth in peatlands. Seven peatlands located in the St. Lawrence Lowlands (Québec, Canada) were sampled, and 1 m long peat cores were collected from up‐gradient, mid‐gradient, and down‐gradient zones. All cores were used to measure ρ dry , K, S y , and to estimate peat composition and humification. Statistically significant correlations were found between (a) K and S y (log–log model), (b) K and depth (log–log model), (c) S y and depth (log–log model), (d) ρ dry and S y (log model), and (e) ρ dry and K (log model). No significant difference was found in either K or S y between sites. However, significant differences were found in water table depths. Because they provide a fuller description of the peat properties that control water table depths, these newly developed functions have the potential to improve the capacity of ecohydrological models to simulate time‐varying hydrological conditions.

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 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 score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcohydrologySame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207