MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322209527 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-14026

Permafrost soil organic matter (de)composition in times of global warming

2023· preprint· en· W4322209527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cornelia Rottensteiner, V. J. Martin, Alberto Canarini, Hannes Schmidt, Leila Hadžiabdić, Julia Horak, Moritz Mohrlok, Willeke A’Campo, Luca Durstewitz, Julia Wagner, Rachele Lodi, Niek Jesse Speetjens, George Tanski, Michael Fritz, Hugues Lantuit, Gustaf Hugelius, Andreas Richter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostOrganic matterSoil organic matterTundraMicrobial population biologyEnvironmental scienceSoil waterEnvironmental chemistryArcticEcologySoil scienceGeologyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic warms four times faster than the global average, resulting in widespread permafrost thaw. Organic matter that was stored in permanently frozen soil for up to millennia now becomes available to microbial decomposition. Warming might also alter microbial community composition and physiology and thus change the decomposition potential of soils. Our current knowledge about permafrost soil organic matter (SOM) composition and decomposition is limited, particularly in regard to the heterogeneity of permafrost landscapes, thus hampering our ability to predict possible permafrost soil feedbacks to climate change. The objective of this study was to characterize SOM and microbial community composition of the active layer and the upper permanently frozen soil from permafrost-affected polygonal lowland tundra.We collected more than 80 soil samples from four different soil layers (organic, mineral, cryoturbated, permanently frozen) from three developmental stages of ice-wedge polygons (low-center, flat-center, high-center polygons) in NW Canada, and analyzed organic matter composition by a pyrolysis-GC/MS fingerprinting approach and microbial community composition by amplicon sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene (bacteria, archaea) and the ITS1 region (fungi).Our results suggest that the spatial heterogeneity of permafrost soils is not only reflected in soil physical parameters, but also in the chemical composition of organic matter and the composition of microbial communities. The organic soil layer comprised both the highest microbial diversity and the most diverse SOM composition. The distribution of major compound classes (carbohydrates, lignins, lipids, N-compounds, phenols & aromatics) differed between organic, mineral, cryoturbated and permanently frozen organic matter. This pattern followed a gradient from low to high organic matter degradation with soil depth. Soil organic matter composition also differed among polygon types, indicating different decomposition pathways, likely depending on differences in vegetation and soil water availability. We also found distinct microbial communities for soils from low-center polygons, possibly driven by prevailing anoxic conditions in this landscape unit. Bacterial and archaeal communities differed among all soil layers, while only fungal communities from the organic soils differed from the other layers.The observed differences in SOM and microbial community composition among soil layers and polygon types highlight the importance of considering spatial heterogeneity when studying permafrost soils. Moreover, our results might help to explain observed differences in microbial decomposition patterns on different spatial scales and emphasize the need to include aspects of permafrost soil heterogeneity to finetune current ecosystem and climate models.This study is part of the EU H2020 project “Nunataryuk”.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→