MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2899842499 · doi:10.5194/bgd-12-1907-2015

WETCHIMP-WSL: intercomparison of wetland methane emissions models over West Siberia

2015· preprint· en· W2899842499 on OpenAlexafffund
T. J. Bohn, Joe R. Melton, Akihiko Ito, Thomas Kleinen, Renato Spahni, Benjamin D. Stocker, B. Zhang, Xudong Zhu, R. Schroeder, М. В. Глаголев, Shamil Maksyutov, Victor Brovkin, Guangsheng Chen, S. N. Denisov, А. В. Елисеев, Angela Gallego‐Sala, K. C. McDonald, M. A. Rawlins, W. J. Riley, Z. M. Subin, Hanqin Tian, Qianlai Zhuang, Jed O. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaObservatoire de Paris, Université de Recherche Paris Sciences et LettresUniversity of California, Los AngelesGoddard Space Flight CenterTomsk State UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMinistry of EnvironmentBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungUniversity of BristolU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionNational Science FoundationUniversity of WashingtonRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsWetlandEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasPermafrostClimate changeCoupled model intercomparison projectMethaneLatitudeAtmospheric sciencesGlobal warmingHydrology (agriculture)ClimatologyClimate modelPhysical geographyGeographyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Wetlands are the world's largest natural source of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. The strong sensitivity of methane emissions to environmental factors such as soil temperature and moisture has led to concerns about potential positive feedbacks to climate change. This risk is particularly relevant at high latitudes, which have experienced pronounced warming and where thawing permafrost could potentially liberate large amounts of labile carbon over the next 100 years. However, global models disagree as to the magnitude and spatial distribution of emissions, due to uncertainties in wetland area and emissions per unit area and a scarcity of in situ observations. Recent intensive field campaigns across the West Siberian Lowland (WSL) make this an ideal region over which to assess the performance of large-scale process-based wetland models in a high-latitude environment. Here we present the results of a follow-up to the Wetland and Wetland CH4 Intercomparison of Models Project (WETCHIMP), focused on the West Siberian Lowland (WETCHIMP-WSL). We assessed 21 models and 5 inversions over this domain in terms of total CH4 emissions, simulated wetland areas, and CH4 fluxes per unit wetland area and compared these results to an intensive in situ CH4 flux dataset, several wetland maps, and two satellite inundation products. We found that: (a) despite the large scatter of individual estimates, 12 year mean estimates of annual total emissions over the WSL from forward models (5.34 ± 0.54 Tg CH4 y-1), inversions (6.06 ± 1.22 Tg CH4 y-1), and in situ observations (3.91 ± 1.29 Tg CH4 y-1) largely agreed, (b) forward models using inundation products alone to estimate wetland areas suffered from severe biases in CH4 emissions, (c) the interannual timeseries of models that lacked either soil thermal physics appropriate to the high latitudes or realistic emissions from unsaturated peatlands tended to be dominated by a single environmental driver (inundation or air temperature), unlike those of inversions and more sophisticated forward models, (d) differences in biogeochemical schemes across models had relatively smaller influence over performance; and (e) multi-year or multi-decade observational records are crucial for evaluating models' responses to long-term 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→