Total Aquatic Carbon Emissions Across the Boreal Biome of Québec Driven by Watershed Slope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inland waters emit large amounts of CO 2 and CH 4 to the atmosphere, partially offsetting the sequestration of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems. However, the incorporation of inland waters into landscape carbon budgets remains challenging, hampered by a lack of studies that consider both carbon gases and the variety of aquatic systems (streams, rivers, and lakes). Here we develop a whole‐network assessment of total aquatic carbon emissions for a set of large watersheds in boreal Québec, Canada. Expressed per unit watershed area, our estimates of total (CO 2 + CH 4 ) aquatic carbon emissions range between 11 and 38 g C m −2 yr −1 and cannot be predicted from the size of the watershed or the total surface area of aquatic systems. Rather, we show that total aquatic emissions vary across the boreal landscape of Québec as a function of the average slope of the watershed, which indirectly accounts for the configuration of aquatic networks, the physical forcing that influences gas exchange in fluvial systems, and the potential amount of soil carbon reaching aquatic systems. Total aquatic carbon emissions in boreal Québec are of the same range and magnitude of variation than other components of the boreal carbon budget and could offset terrestrial net ecosystem productivity by as much as 38%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".