Carbon dioxide fluxes of tundra vegetation communities on an esker top in the low-Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that carbon dioxide fluxes vary considerably among Arctic environments and it is important to assess these differences in order to develop our understanding of the role of Arctic tundra in the global carbon cycle. Although many previous studies have examined tundra carbon dioxide fluxes, few have concentrated on elevated terrain (hills and ridge tops) that is exposed to harsh environmental conditions resulting in sparse vegetation cover and seemingly low productivity. In this study we measured carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange of four common tundra communities on the crest of an esker located in the central Canadian low-Arctic. The objectives were to quantify and compare CO2 fluxes from these communities, investigate responses to environmental variables and qualitatively compare fluxes with those from similar communities growing in less harsh lowland tundra environments. Measurements made during July and August 2010 show there was little difference in net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and gross ecosystem production (GEP) among the three deciduous shrub communities, Arctous alpina, Betula glandulosa and Vaccinium uliginosum, with means ranging from −4.09 to −6.57 µmol•m−2•s−1 and −7.92 to −9.24 µmol•m−2•s−1, respectively. Empetrum nigrum communities had significantly smaller mean NEE and GEP (−1.74 and −4.08 µmol•m−2•s−1, respectively). Ecosystem respiration (ER) was similar for all communities (2.56 to 3.03 µmol•m−2•s−1), except the B. glandulosa community which had a larger mean flux (4.66 µmol•m−2•s−1). Overall, fluxes for these esker-top communities were near the upper range of fluxes reported for other tundra communities. ER was related to soil temperature in all of the communities. Only B. glandulosa GEP and ER showed sensitivity to a persistent decline in soil moisture throughout the study. These findings may have important implications for how esker tops would be treated in construction of regional carbon budgets and for predicting the impacts of climate change on Arctic tundra future carbon budgets. Citation: Lafleur P M, Campeau A B, Kang S. Carbon dioxide fluxes of tundra vegetation communities on an esker top in the low-Arctic. Adv Polar Sci, 2020, 31(3): 167-177, doi: 10.13679/j.advps.2020.0017
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".