Hysteretic temperature sensitivity of wetland CH <sub>4</sub> fluxes explained by substrate availability and microbial activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methane (CH 4 ) emissions from wetlands are likely increasing and important in global climate change assessments. However, contemporary terrestrial biogeochemical model predictions of CH 4 emissions are very uncertain, at least in part due to prescribed temperature sensitivity of CH 4 production and emission. While statistically consistent apparent CH 4 emission temperature dependencies have been inferred from meta-analyses across microbial to ecosystem scales, year-round ecosystem-scale observations have contradicted that finding. Here, we show that apparent CH 4 emission temperature dependencies inferred from year-round chamber measurements exhibit substantial intra-seasonal variability, suggesting that using static temperature relations to predict CH 4 emissions is mechanistically flawed. Our model results indicate that such intra-seasonal variability is driven by substrate-mediated microbial and abiotic interactions: seasonal cycles in substrate availability favors CH 4 production later in the season, leading to hysteretic temperature sensitivity of CH 4 production and emission. Our findings demonstrate the uncertainty of inferring CH 4 emission or production rates from temperature alone and highlight the need to represent microbial and abiotic interactions in wetland biogeochemical models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".