MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differences in ebullitive methane release from small, shallow ponds present challenges for scaling

2021· article· en· W3195409804 on OpenAlexafffund
Anthony A. P. Baron, L.T. Dyck, H. Amjad, Jack D. Bragg, E. Kroft, Jeremy K. Newson, Keith W. Oleson, Nora J. Casson, Rebecca L. North, Jason J. Venkiteswaran, Colin J. Whitfield

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science of The Total Environment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of WinnipegGlobal Institute for Water Security
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMethaneEnvironmental scienceWaves and shallow waterFlux (metallurgy)ScalingBioturbationAtmosphere (unit)Organic matterDry seasonGreenhouse gasSurface waterEnvironmental chemistryAtmospheric sciencesEcologyHydrology (agriculture)ChemistrySedimentBiologyOceanographyGeologyEnvironmental engineeringGeographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small, shallow waterbodies are potentially important sites of greenhouse gas release to the atmosphere. The role of ebullition may be enhanced here relative to larger and deeper systems, due to their shallow water, but these features remain relatively infrequently studied in comparison to larger systems. Herein, we quantify ebullitive release of methane (CH4) in small shallow ponds in three regions of North America and investigate the role of potential drivers. Shallow ponds exhibited open-water season ebullitive CH4 release rates as high as 40 mmol m–2 d–1, higher than previously reported for similar systems. Ebullitive release of CH4 varied by four orders of magnitude across our 15 study sites, with differences in flux rates both within and between regions. What is less clear are the drivers responsible for these differences. There were few relationships between open water–season ebullitive flux and physicochemical characteristics, including organic matter, temperature, and sulphate. Temperature was only weakly related to ebullitive CH4 release across the study when considering all observation intervals. Only four individual sites exhibited significant relationships between temperature and ebullitive CH4 release. Other sites were unresponsive to temperature, and region-specific factors may play a role. There is some evidence that where surface water sulphate concentrations are high, CH4 production and release may be suppressed. Missouri sites (n = 5) had characteristically low ebullitive CH4 release; here bioturbation could be important. While this work greatly expands the number of open-water season ebullition rates for small and shallow ponds, more research is needed to disentangle the role of different drivers. Further investigation of the potential thresholding behaviour of sulphate as a control on ebullitive CH4 release in lentic systems is one such opportunity. What is clear, however, is that efforts to scale emissions (e.g., as a function of temperature) must be undertaken with caution.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Science of The Total EnvironmentSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207