MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107058352 · doi:10.3389/feart.2020.557943

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Dynamics in Restored Fens After In-Situ Oil Sands Well Pad Disturbances of Canadian Boreal Peatlands

2020· article· en· W3107058352 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Meike Lemmer, Line Rochefort, Maria Strack

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooCenter for Northern Studies
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeatBogEnvironmental scienceBorealSphagnumRevegetationWetlandShrubCarexCarbon sequestrationBiogeochemical cycleCarbon dioxideEcosystemMossOrganic matterEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEcologyLand reclamationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In-situ oil extraction activities impact the vast mosaic of boreal wetlands and uplands. Peatland restoration in these regions aims at reestablishing crucial peatland functions, such as peat accumulation and carbon (C) sequestration. In order to assess the success of fen restoration, we evaluated the biogeochemical conditions, the seasonal carbon balances via carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) fluxes and methane (CH 4 ) emissions, and addressed the global warming potential following different restoration techniques at two restored in-situ oil sands well pads, during two consecutive growing seasons. Restoration work involved: 1) the partial or complete removal of introduced well pad construction materials, and spontaneous revegetation, or 2) the partial removal of foreign clay, in addition to reintroduction of typical fen plant species such as Larix laricina , Salix lutea and Carex aquatilis . Comparisons were done with regional reference ecosystems (REF) consisting of three peatlands: a wooded bog, a wooded rich fen and a wooded extreme-rich fen. While the average electric conductivity of restored sectors (946 μS cm −1 ) was higher compared to REF (360 μS cm −1 ), the pH was quite similar (pH 5.8 REF, pH 6 restored). Dissolved organic carbon concentration was lower in all restored sectors (5–11 mg L -1 restored sectors, 15–35 mg L -1 REF), presumably due to the still incomplete recovery of vegetation and lower organic matter content associated with remnant well pad material. Re-establishment of shrub and brown moss species improved significantly the C uptake. However, the active introduction of plant species was no crucial restoration step, in order to return species beneficial for C uptake. Restoration treatments that were leveled closest to the surrounding REF showed the most similar seasonal C balance to REF. In shallow open water areas resulting from the complete removal of all construction materials, we measured the highest methane emissions making these flooded sites net C sources to the atmosphere with elevated global warming potential. The partial removal of the well pad’s mineral soil to near the water table level and the surface elevation of the surrounding ecosystem seems to be the most effective site management method to sequester carbon efficiently. However, further research is needed to evaluate the suitability of this restoration method for the recovery of biodiversity and possible impacts of residual foreign materials on fen 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Earth ScienceSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207