Foliar methane uptake capacity as a critical plant trait in the global carbon cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until recently it has been assumed that the main site of methane exchange between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere is soils. However, recent research has shown that tree stems can contribute substantial methane flux; moreover, the few studies that have examined foliar methane flux in situ have found non-negligible fluxes. Foliar methane uptake appears to be mediated by methanotrophic endophytes and is appreciable in upland forests where soils also show net methane oxidation. In contrast, foliar release of methane can occur in lowland forests in which soils show net methane release as a result of transport of dissolved methane through the xylem stream. There is evidence that both foliar methane uptake (and release) are mediated by stomatal conductance, suggesting that the capacity for foliar methane fluxes may be closely related to other gas-exchange-related functional traits of leaves that covary along the fast-slow leaf economics spectrum. Here we compile data on reported rates of foliar methane uptake in upland forests to test this idea. Data from three northern forest sites in Canada and Sweden indicate that: (1) methane uptake capacity is generally higher in broadleaf angiosperms than in conifers; and (2) methane uptake capacity is positively correlated with leaf nitrogen content, but shows a saturating pattern with a maximum rate of ~0.6-0.7 nmol m-2 s-1. We contend that foliar methane uptake has been under-appreciated as an important process in the global carbon cycle, but that patterns suggest a close linkage to other plant traits that will permit integration of this process into existing carbon cycle models.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".