MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationship between soil CO2 fluxes and soil moisture: Anaerobic sources explain fluxes at high water content

2023· article· en· W4368341394 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoderma · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsWater contentAnoxic watersMoistureEnvironmental scienceSaturation (graph theory)Soil scienceMethaneSoil waterCarbon dioxideEnvironmental chemistryMineralization (soil science)Soil respirationChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil moisture is a known environmental factor influencing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and therefore represents an important variable in predictive models. Establishing relationships between soil CO2 emissions and soil moisture has long focused on the role of soil organic carbon mineralization by aerobic respiration. This approach, which generally yields a bell-shaped relationship establishing maximum CO2 production at moderate soil moisture, ignores anaerobic processes as a potential source of CO2. To decouple the effects of soil moisture and O2, we conducted a factorial batch experiment by incubating soil samples at different imposed moisture contents (30%, 45%, 65%, 80%, and 100% water-filled pore space; WFPS) at 25 °C, under both oxic (normal air) and anoxic (N2 atmosphere) headspace conditions. Gas fluxes measured in the oxic incubations show that CO2 fluxes were maximal (31.2 ± 1.8 nmol cm−3 soil hr-1) at moderate moisture content (65% WFPS), as commonly reported. However, contrary to previous models that predict negligible CO2 fluxes under fully saturated conditions due to O2 limitation, substantial fluxes of CO2 (18.1 ± 2.2 nmol cm−3 soil hr-1) were measured at 100% WFPS. In the anoxic treatments, CO2 fluxes rose sharply when the moisture content exceeded 65% WFPS, with values at 100% saturation (21.8 ± 2.2 nmol cm−3 soil hr-1), close to the corresponding fluxes in the oxic incubations. Methane (CH4) fluxes in the anoxic incubations increased over time, ultimately reaching parity with the CO2 fluxes at 100% WFPS. To reproduce the soil moisture dependence of the CO2 fluxes, we propose a kinetic model representing both aerobic and anaerobic CO2 production. Together, the gas flux measurements, porewater geochemistry data, and modeling results indicated that at soil moisture contents approaching saturation (≥90%), anaerobic processes were the major source of CO2 in the oxic incubations. Overall, we conclude that existing models may underrepresent soil CO2 production at high soil moisture by not considering anaerobic reaction pathways releasing CO2.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.176 · 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