Multiple processes contribute to methane emission in a riparian cottonwood forest ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Methane emission from trees may partially or completely offset the methane sink in upland soils, the only process that has been regularly included in methane budgets for forest ecosystems. Our objective was to analyze multiple biogeochemical processes that influence the production, oxidation and transport of methane in a riparian cottonwood ecosystem and its adjacent river. We combined chamber flux measurements on tree stems, forest soil and the river surface with eddy covariance measurements of methane net ecosystem exchange. In addition, we tested whether methanogens were present in cottonwood stems, shallow soil layers and alluvial groundwater. Average midday peak in net methane emission measured by eddy covariance was c . 12 nmol m −2 s −1 . The average uptake of methane by soils (0.87 nmol m −2 s −1 ) was largely offset by tree stem methane emission (0.75 nmol m −2 s −1 ). There was evidence of methanogens in tree stems but not in shallow soil. Growing season (May–September) cumulative net methane emission (17.4 mmol CH 4 m −2 ) included methane produced in cottonwood stems and methane input to the nocturnal boundary layer from the forest and the adjacent river. The multiple processes contributing to methane emission illustrated the linked nature of these adjacent terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".