MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896806169 · doi:10.5194/bg-16-2573-2019

Shifting mineral and redox controls on carbon cycling in seasonally flooded mineral soils

2019· article· en· W2896806169 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rachelle LaCroix, Malak Tfaily, Menli McCreight, Morris E. Jones, Lesley Spokas, Marco Keiluweit

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaWestern Economic Diversification CanadaBiological and Environmental ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute of Food and AgricultureUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Light SourceOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSoil waterBiogeochemical cycleEnvironmental scienceSoil carbonOrganic matterBiomass (ecology)Total organic carbonCarbon cycleSoil horizonEnvironmental chemistryDeciduousAgronomyEcologySoil scienceEcosystemChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although wetland soils represent a relatively small portion of the terrestrial landscape, they account for an estimated 20 %–30 % of the global soil carbon (C) reservoir. C stored in wetland soils that experience seasonal flooding is likely the most vulnerable to increased severity and duration of droughts in response to climate change. Redox conditions, plant root dynamics, and the abundance of protective mineral phases are well-established controls on soil C persistence, but their relative influence in seasonally flooded mineral soils is largely unknown. To address this knowledge gap, we assessed the relative importance of environmental (temperature, soil moisture, and redox potential) and biogeochemical (mineral composition and root biomass) factors in controlling CO 2 efflux, C quantity, and organic matter composition along replicated upland–lowland transitions in seasonally flooded mineral soils. Specifically, we contrasted mineral soils under temperature deciduous forests in lowland positions that undergo seasonal flooding with adjacent upland soils that do not, considering both surface (A) and subsurface (B and C) horizons. We found the lowland soils had lower total annual CO 2 efflux than the upland soils, with monthly CO 2 efflux in lowlands most strongly correlated with redox potential (E h ). Lower CO 2 efflux as compared to the uplands corresponded to greater C content and abundance of lignin-rich, higher-molecular-weight, chemically reduced organic compounds in the lowland surface soils (A horizons). In contrast, subsurface soils in the lowland position (C g horizons) showed lower C content than the upland positions (C horizons), coinciding with lower abundance of root biomass and oxalate-extractable Fe (Fe o , a proxy for protective Fe phases). Our linear mixed-effects model showed that Fe o served as the strongest measured predictor of C content in upland soils, yet Fe o had no predictive power in lowland soils. Instead, our model showed that E h and oxalate-extractable Al (Al o , a proxy of protective Al phases) became significantly stronger predictors in the lowland soils. Combined, our results suggest that low redox potentials are the primary cause for C accumulation in seasonally flooded surface soils, likely due to selective preservation of organic compounds under anaerobic conditions. In seasonally flooded subsurface soils, however, C accumulation is limited due to lower C inputs through root biomass and the removal of reactive Fe phases under reducing conditions. Our findings demonstrate that C accrual in seasonally flooded mineral soil is primarily due to low redox potential in the surface soil and that the lack of protective metal phases leaves these C stocks highly vulnerable to climate change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations81
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207