MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226532763 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac63d5

The unrecognized importance of carbon stocks and fluxes from swamps in Canada and the USA

2022· article· en· W4226532763 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Scott J. Davidson, Emily Daze, Eunji Byun, Dean Hiler, Markus Kangur, Julie Talbot, Sarah A. Finkelstein, Maria Strack

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalOntario Forest Research InstituteMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSwampEnvironmental scienceWetlandPeatSoil carbonCarbon cycleShrubEcosystemSoil organic matterCarbon sinkHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterEcologySoil scienceGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Swamps are a highly significant wetland type in North America both in terms of areal extent and their role in terrestrial carbon cycling. These wetlands, characterized by woody vegetation cover, encompass a diverse suite of ecosystems, including broad-leaved, needle-leaved, mixedwood or shrub/thicket swamps. Uncertainties in the role of swamps in carbon uptake and release continue to be substantial due to insufficient data on variabilities in carbon densities across diverse swamp types and relatively few flux measurements from swamp sites. Robust measurements of rates of vertical accretion of swamp soils and the associated long-term rates of carbon accumulation, alongside measurements of carbon losses from swamps, are needed for emerging frameworks for carbon accounting, and for assessments of the impacts of climate warming and land use change on this important wetland type. Based on data compilation, we present here a comparative analysis from a series of North American swamp sites on carbon dioxide, methane and dissolved organic carbon fluxes, aboveground biomass, net primary productivity (NPP), and soil carbon properties including bulk densities, organic carbon contents, peat depths, rates of vertical accretion, and rates of long-term carbon accumulation. We compare these properties for four major swamp types: needle-leaved, broad-leaved, mixedwood and shrub/thicket swamps. We show differences in carbon fluxes, biomass and NPP across the four types, with broad-leaved swamps having the largest CH 4 flux, highest soil bulk densities, thinnest peat depths and lowest soil organic matter contents, whereas needle-leaved swamps have the smallest CH 4 flux, highest aboveground biomass and highest NPP. We show high soil carbon stocks (kg C m −2 ) in all types of swamps, even those where organic deposits were too shallow to meet the definition of peat. However, we note there is a significant lack of studies focused on swamp carbon dynamics despite their abundance across Canada and the United States.

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)0.001
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207