Drivers and variability of CO2:O2 saturation along a gradient from boreal to Arctic lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lakes are significant players for the global climate since they sequester terrestrially derived dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and emit greenhouse gases like CO 2 to the atmosphere. However, the differences in environmental drivers of CO 2 concentrations are not well constrained along latitudinal and thus climate gradients. Our aim here is to provide a better understanding of net heterotrophy and gas balance at the catchment scale in a set of boreal, sub-Arctic and high-Arctic lakes. We assessed water chemistry and concentrations of dissolved O 2 and CO 2 , as well as the CO 2 :O 2 ratio in three groups of lakes separated by steps of approximately 10 degrees latitude in South-Eastern Norway (near 60° N), sub-Arctic lakes in the northernmost part of the Norwegian mainland (near 70° N) and high-Arctic lakes on Svalbard (near 80° N). Across all regions, CO 2 saturation levels varied more (6–1374%) than O 2 saturation levels (85–148%) and hence CO 2 saturation governed the CO 2 :O 2 ratio. The boreal lakes were generally undersaturated with O 2 , while the sub-Arctic and high-Arctic lakes ranged from O 2 saturated to oversaturated. Regardless of location, the majority of the lakes were CO 2 supersaturated. In the boreal lakes the CO 2 :O 2 ratio was mainly related to DOC concentration, in contrast to the sub-Arctic and high-Arctic localities, where conductivity was the major statistical determinant. While the southern part is dominated by granitic and metamorphic bedrock, the sub-Arctic sites are scattered across a range of granitic to sedimentary bed rocks, and the majority of the high-Arctic lakes are situated on limestone, resulting in contrasting lake alkalinities between the regions. DOC dependency of the CO 2 :O 2 ratio in the boreal region together with low alkalinity suggests that in-lake heterotrophic respiration was a major source of lake CO 2 . Contrastingly, the conductivity dependency indicates that CO 2 saturation in the sub-Arctic and high-Arctic lakes was to a large part explained by DIC input from catchment respiration and carbonate weathering.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".