MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988028434 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab56e6

Prompt active restoration of peatlands substantially reduces climate impact

2019· article· en· W2988028434 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kelly A. Nugent, Ian B. Strachan, Nigel T. Roulet, Maria Strack, Steve Frolking, Manuel Helbig

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeatChronosequenceEnvironmental scienceRadiative forcingClimate changeCarbon sequestrationAtmospheric sciencesGreenhouse gasEcosystemCarbon dioxideEcologySoil scienceSoil waterGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Restoration of peatlands after peat extraction could be a benefit to the climate system. However a multi-year ecosystem-scale assessment of net carbon (C) sequestration is needed. We investigate the climate impact of active peatland restoration (rewetting and revegetating) using a chronosequence of C gas exchange measurements across post-extraction Canadian peatlands. An atmospheric perturbation model computed the instantaneous change in radiative forcing of CO 2 and CH 4 emissions/uptake over 500 years. We found that using emission factors specific to an active restoration technique resulted in a radiative forcing reduction of 89% within 20 years compared to IPCC Tier 1 emission factors based on a wide range of rewetting activities. Immediate active restoration achieved a neutral climate impact (excluding C losses in the removed peat) about 155 years earlier than did a 20 year delay in restoration. A management plan that includes prompt active restoration is key to utilizing peatland restoration as a climate change mitigation strategy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0060.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations93
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207