Pipes or chimneys? For carbon cycling in small boreal lakes, precipitation matters most
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Are small lakes passive pipes transporting terrigenous organic carbon (dissolved organic carbon [DOC]), or chimneys for CO 2 release in the landscape? Using a unique combination of 30‐yr measurements, sediment dating and modeling of a small humic lake and its catchment in southeast Norway, we calculated lateral DOC fluxes and in‐lake retention. Concentrations and fluxes rose significantly, driven by declining sulfur deposition and increased precipitation. In‐lake retention (% of inputs) declined because of higher discharge and lower residence times. DOC removal rates were not sensitive to residence time. Modeled in‐lake DOC removal was driven primarily by microbial metabolism and, secondarily, by flocculation, suggesting that the likely fate of lake‐retained DOC is CO 2 evasion to the atmosphere. Precipitation was the overriding landscape control on DOC fluxes and retention. In a wetter climate, small northern lakes will, on balance, function more as pipes than chimneys, with increasing lateral DOC fluxes but little change in CO 2 production.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".