Aquatic and Terrestrial Plant Contributions to Sedimentary Plant Waxes in a Modern Arctic Lake Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sedimentary plant wax δ 2 H values are common proxies for hydrology, a poorly constrained variable in the Arctic. However, it can be difficult to distinguish plant waxes derived from aquatic versus terrestrial plants, causing uncertainty in climate interpretations. We test the hypothesis that Arctic lake sediment mid‐ and long‐chain plant waxes derive from aquatic and terrestrial plants, respectively. We compare n ‐alkanoic acid and n ‐alkane chain‐length distributions and n ‐alkanoic acid δ 2 H and δ 13 C values of the 29 most abundant modern plant taxa to those for soils, water filtrates, and lake sediments in the Qaupat Lake (QPT) catchment, Nunavut, Canada. Chain length distributions are variable among terrestrial plants, but similar and dominated by mid‐chain waxes among submerged/floating aquatic plants. Sedimentary wax distributions are similar to those in submerged/floating aquatic plants and to Salix spp., which are among the most abundant terrestrial plants in the QPT catchment. Mid‐chain n‐ alkanoic acid δ 2 H values are similar in sediments and submerged/floating aquatic plants, but 50‰ lower than Salix spp. In contrast, sedimentary long‐chain n ‐alkanoic acid δ 2 H values fall between those for submerged/floating aquatic plants and Salix spp. We therefore infer that mid‐chain waxes in QPT are primarily from aquatic plants, whereas long‐chain waxes are from a mix of terrestrial and aquatic plants. In Arctic lakes like QPT, terrestrial wax transport via leaf litter and surface flow is limited by low‐lying topography and sparse vegetation. If these lakes also have abundant aquatic plants growing near the sediment‐water interface, the aquatic plants can contribute large portions of sedimentary waxes.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".