MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996226569 · doi:10.1111/gcb.14960

Fluvial CO<sub>2</sub> and CH<sub>4</sub> patterns across wildfire‐disturbed ecozones of subarctic Canada: Current status and implications for future change

2019· article· en· W2996226569 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ryan Hutchins, Suzanne E. Tank, David Olefeldt, William L. Quinton, Christopher Spence, N.P. Dion, Cristian Estop‐Aragonés, S. G. Mengistu

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta InnovatesPolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsSubarctic climateFluvialCurrent (fluid)Climate changePhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceGeologyHydrology (agriculture)Earth scienceGeographyGeomorphologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite occupying a small fraction of the landscape, fluvial networks are disproportionately large emitters of CO2 and CH4, with the potential to offset terrestrial carbon sinks. Yet the extent of this offset remains uncertain, because current estimates of fluvial emissions often do not integrate beyond individual river reaches and over the entire fluvial network in complex landscapes. Here we studied broad patterns of concentrations and isotopic signatures of CO2 and CH4 in 50 streams in the western boreal biome of Canada, across an area of 250,000 km2. Our study watersheds differ starkly in their geology (sedimentary and shield), permafrost extent (sporadic to extensive discontinuous) and land cover (large variability in lake and wetland extents). We also investigated the effect of wildfire, as half of our study streams drained watersheds affected by megafires that occurred 3 years prior. Similar to other boreal regions, we found that stream CO2 concentrations were primarily associated with greater terrestrial productivity and warmer climates, and decreased downstream within the fluvial network. No effects of recent wildfire, bedrock geology or land cover composition were found. The isotopic signatures suggested dominance of biogenic CO2 sources, despite dominant carbonate bedrock in parts of the study region. Fluvial CH4 concentrations had a high variability which could not be explained by any landscape factors. Estimated fluvial CO2 emissions were 0.63 (0.09–6.06, 95% CI) and 0.29 (0.17–0.44, 95% CI) g C m−2 year−1 at the landscape scale using a stream network modelling and a mass balance approach, respectively, a small but potentially important component of the landscape C balance. These fluvial CO2 emissions are lower than in other northern regions, likely due to a drier climate. Overall, our study suggests that fluvial CO2 emissions are unlikely to be sensitive to altered fire regimes, but that warming and permafrost thaw will increase emissions significantly.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207