Linking Biogeochemical and Hydrodynamic Processes to Model Methane Fluxes in Shallow, Tropical Floodplain Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Floodplains lakes are abundant in the Amazon basin and are important methane sources to the atmosphere. Existing biogeochemical models require modifications and inclusion of hydrodynamic processes operative in shallow, warm waters to be applied to these aquatic ecosystems. We modified a 1‐dimensional process‐based, lake biogeochemical model and combined a 3‐dimensional hydrodynamic model to suit Amazon floodplains. We evaluated the combined model's performance simulating methane concentrations and fluxes and several related processes in the open lake and an embayment of a well‐studied Amazon lake. Parameters for calibration were selected through sensitivity tests using a machine learning‐based algorithm, classification, and regression trees. Comparison between simulated and measured fluxes indicate generally good agreement in seasonal patterns and magnitudes. Comparisons of near‐surface concentrations varied with no clear patterns. Simulations of methane concentrations at near‐surface and near‐bottom, and diffusive emissions are most sensitive to carbon mineralization rate, Q10 factors for methanogenesis and oxidation, and methane oxidation potential. Modeled rates of planktonic photosynthesis were generally lower than measurements, though simulated planktonic respiration was often similar to measurements. Simulated rates of methane oxidation were considerably lower, with a few exceptions, than measurements of methane oxidation in oxic water of the lake. Improvements of results of the linked hydrodynamic‐biogeochemical model will result from inclusion of advective transport, use of parameter values appropriate for tropical waters, especially for methane oxidation and photosynthesis, and addition of changes in hydrostatic pressure to model of ebullition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".