Plant community dynamics and carbon sequestration in <i>Sphagnum</i>‐dominated peatlands in the era of global change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Hydroclimatic shifts and anthropogenic‐driven nitrogen deposition are major outcomes of global change that could compromise the functioning of many peatlands as a carbon sink. For Sphagnum ‐dominated peatlands, an emerging hypothesis is that the change could be triggered by shifts in competitive dominance among plant functional groups, specifically from the currently predominant decay‐resistant Sphagnum to the more decomposable vascular plants. However, the relationship between Sphagnum and vascular plant occurrence is notably complex and also includes facilitative interactions that are crucial to the productivity of Sphagnum , and therefore, carbon sequestration. Location Global. Taxa Northern peatlands— Sphagnum moss and vascular plants. Time period Present day and the future. Methods We use a conceptual review to examine underlying mechanisms for the competitive exclusion hypothesis and the nature of facilitative interactions between Sphagnum and vascular plants under potential global change conditions. We complement the review with an empirical study of peatlands with contrasting hydrology to provide some critical insights into the potential effects of change in plant communities on carbon sequestration. We also propose a conceptual model that presents probable combinations of global change factors and their implications for carbon sequestration. Results Vegetation structure in Sphagnum ‐dominated peatland appears to be driven largely by hydrology, rather than competition among plant functional groups. The peat deposit also exerts some controls (e.g., nutrient immobilization) on biotic structure, thereby acting as resistance against an abrupt shift in plant communities. Main conclusions Peatland controls that constrain vegetation shifts have developed over a millennial time‐scale in many peatlands, and the pace of climate change may not allow enough time for the establishment of those mechanisms in younger peatlands. Thus, the persistence of a given peatland as a carbon sink also likely depends on the successional stage of the peatland.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".