MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283593672 · doi:10.1029/2022jg006855

Carbon Dioxide and Methane Dynamics in a Peatland Headwater Stream: Origins, Processes and Implications

2022· article· en· W4283593672 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pierre Taillardat, Pascal Bodmer, Charles P. Deblois, Alex Ponçot, Antonin Prijac, Khawla Riahi, Laure Gandois, Paul A. del Giorgio, Marc‐André Bourgault, Alain Tremblay, Michelle Garneau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHydro-QuébecInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeatGreenhouse gasMethaneCarbon dioxideEnvironmental scienceSTREAMSHydrology (agriculture)Carbon fibersEnvironmental chemistryWater tableCarbon cycleChemistryEcosystemEcologyGroundwaterGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract First‐order streams flowing through peatlands receive, carry and transform large amounts of organic carbon, methane (CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) but remain poorly documented. The objectives of this study were to (a) identify the origins of CO 2 and CH 4 (thereafter C‐GHG for carbon greenhouse gases) in a peatland headwater stream, (b) determine the environmental factors driving C‐GHG export and emissions, and (c) quantify C‐GHG losses from this system and discuss its implications. Data were collected from eight sampling sites along a 3 km boreal peatland headwater stream (Eastern Canada) over the growing seasons 2019 and 2020. The studied stream was oversaturated in p CO 2 [min: 2,044; max: 23,306 μatm] and p CH 4 [14; 17,614 μatm]. A mass balance model showed that ∼81% of in‐stream CO 2 originated from porewater seepage while the remaining 17% and 2% originated from in‐stream productivity and methane oxidation, respectively. Porewater seepage was concluded to be the primary source of CH 4 . Seasonal dissolved C‐GHG concentrations were negatively correlated with the peatland water table depth, suggesting an active release of carbon‐rich peat porewater during the base flow. Nevertheless, greater C‐GHG losses occurred during stormflow periods which acted as pulses with most of the C‐GHG being shunted downstream. The sum of C‐GHG export and emissions at our site was 8.08 gC m −2 y −1 with 86% being released to the atmosphere and 14% being exported downstream. Our study demonstrates that peatland headwater streams act as large sources of C‐GHG and that precipitation events and topography control the magnitude of the fluxes.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations50
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research BiogeosciencesSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207