Paleoecological indicators and carbon dynamics in lake sediments in western Canada and potential implications for protected area carbon management in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lake sediment from 18 lakes across western Canada was studied in regards to carbon accumulation rate over the last 150 years. Carbon (C) accumulation rate was found to be 3.8 times greater on average in the modern time period (1980-2010) when compared to the historical time period (1830-1860). The largest C accumulation rate change was found in the Boreal Plains ecozone. Maximum lake depth, lake geometry ratio, and temperature related climate variables (e.g., number of ice free days) were significantly correlated to C accumulation rate. There was not a statistically significant difference between lake C accumulation rate between protected and non-protected lakes. To better understand how climate controlled millennial forces of vegetation composition and fire related to carbon accumulation, paleo proxies of pollen and charcoal were investigated on two longer sediment cores in adjacent biogeoclimatic zones of the Kootenay Valley of British Columbia. Broad-scale climatic controls are interpreted as the major influence on high fire frequency and carbon accumulation rate in the dry and hot xerothermic period (11,500-8,000 cal. yrs BP). The Kootenay Valley is expected to return to xerothermic-like climate conditions within the next century. The conversation pertaining to how protected areas would manage for carbon in the future began with a workshop exploring how to frame carbon management. Experts were then interviewed and ecological integrity measures were determined to be the best place for carbon to act as either a co-benefit or as a separate ecological integrity measure. A survey of protected area manager perspectives on the importance of each ecological integrity measure to carbon management was created. Vegetation-related ecological integrity measures were found to have the most importance to co-benefit carbon management. Active management in protected areas should use paleo proxies to find reference biogeoclimatic zones and restoration efforts should focus on retaining carbon on the landscape through maintenance of vegetation-related ecological integrity measures like prescribed burning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".