MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Can we expect pristine mountain peatland ecosystems in Central Europe? Evidence from multi-proxy palaeoecological studies on the Holocene peatland development

2020· article· en· W3089323839 on OpenAlexaff
Mariusz Gałka, Klaus‐Holger Knorr, Andrei‐Cosmin Diaconu, Angelica Feurdean, Adam Hölzer, Julie Loisel, Graeme T. Swindles, Ioan Tanţău

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatOmbrotrophicHoloceneMacrofossilTestate amoebaePhysical geographyEcosystemSphagnumGeologyEcologyRadiocarbon datingEnvironmental scienceBogGeographyPaleontologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Holocene climate shifts had a significant impact on the development of ombrotrophic peatland ecosystems located in various biogeographic zones. Disturbances of the plant communities at peatlands ecosystems took place also due to intensified human activities in the past several centuries, that include peat excavation, fires, as well as deposition of dust and pollutants on peatland surfaces. This merger of natural and human impacts has led to direct hydrological and biochemical disturbances that triggered changes in plant populations, e.g. often leading to the decline of some species, such as Sphagnum austinii in Great Britain. The knowledge about the development of peatlands across mountain ranges in Europe is still poor. Determining the resilience of peatland vegetation to disturbance is an important and significant task to aid further protection and management of the entire range of ombrotrophic peatlands found in the European mountains, from destroyed or restored to pristine. We carried out high-resolution, multi-proxy studies including plant macrofossils, pollen, testate amoebae, geochemical analyses (XRF and stable carbon isotopes), micro- and macro-charcoal, supported by radiocarbon dating, on replicate peat cores from five well-preserved ombrotrophic peatlands across Europe where peat-forming process is active. The studied peatlands are located along an east west gradient in the Central and Western Europe: Eastern Carpathian Mts. (Calimani-Gurghiu-Harghita, Romania; Bieszczady, Poland), Harz Mts. and Schwarzwald Mts. (Germany), and Vosges Mts (France). In our palaeocological studies we aimed to: i) reconstruct long-term local (mainly Sphagnum populations) and regional (forest communities) vegetation changes at and around selected bogs; ii) reconstruct long-term palaeohydrological shifts; iii) assess mountain peatland ecosystems resilience to Holocene climate shifts and disturbance by fire events and human impact (deforestation, dust and pollution). Based on our results, we found that: i) despite human activites (pollutants and dust deposition, drainage) some of the mountain peatlands remained in a pristine state, however some plant communities had changed; ii) plant communities composed mainly by Sphagnum species, could repeatedly self-regenerate via autogenic processes following a decline in stressors; iii) recent climate warming has stimulated the spreading of some species indicative of more dry habitats; vi) lack of macrocharcoal in the peat layers indicate that fires did not play a significant role in the development or evolution of local peatland communities. Results from our studies show that palaeoecological records play an important role for the determination of present peatland ecosystem stage and reference conditions for the restoration of damaged ombrotrophic peatlands in European mountains. The research has received support National Science Centre (Poland) grant No UMO-2016/23/B/ST10/00762 (PI: Mariusz Gałka).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→