MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390036732 · doi:10.5194/bg-20-5087-2023

Environmental controls of winter soil carbon dioxide fluxes in boreal and tundra environments

2023· article· en· W4390036732 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex Mavrovic, Oliver Sonnentag, Juha Lemmetyinen, Carolina Voigt, Nick Rutter, P. J. Mann, Jean‐Daniel Sylvain, Alexandre Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Université du Québec à Trois-RivièresCenter for Northern StudiesNunavut Arctic College
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité de MontréalNatural Environment Research CouncilUniversité de SherbrookeFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesSight Research UKPolar Knowledge CanadaWilfrid Laurier UniversityNorthumbria UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsTundraEnvironmental scienceTaigaSoil waterBorealAtmospheric sciencesShrubCarbon dioxideEcosystemCarbon cycleBoreal ecosystemPeatHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The carbon cycle in Arctic–boreal regions (ABRs) is an important component of the planetary carbon balance, with growing concerns about the consequences of ABR warming for the global climate system. The greatest uncertainty in annual carbon dioxide (CO2) budgets exists during winter, primarily due to challenges with data availability and limited spatial coverage in measurements. The goal of this study was to determine the main environmental controls of winter CO2 fluxes in ABRs over a latitudinal gradient (45∘ to 69∘ N) featuring four different ecosystem types: closed-crown coniferous boreal forest, open-crown coniferous boreal forest, erect-shrub tundra, and prostrate-shrub tundra. CO2 fluxes calculated using a snowpack diffusion gradient method (n=560) ranged from 0 to 1.05 g C m2 d−1. To assess the dominant environmental controls governing CO2 fluxes, a random forest machine learning approach was used. We identified soil temperature as the main control of winter CO2 fluxes with 68 % of relative model importance, except when soil liquid water occurred during 0 ∘C curtain conditions (i.e., Tsoil≈0 ∘C and liquid water coexist with ice in soil pores). Under zero-curtain conditions, liquid water content became the main control of CO2 fluxes with 87 % of relative model importance. We observed exponential regressions between CO2 fluxes and soil temperature in fully frozen soils (RMSE=0.024 gCm-2d-1; 70.3 % of mean FCO2) and soils around the freezing point (RMSE=0.286 gCm-2d-1; 112.4 % of mean FCO2). FCO2 increases more rapidly with Tsoil around the freezing point than at Tsoil<5 ∘C. In zero-curtain conditions, the strongest regression was found with soil liquid water content (RMSE=0.137 gCm-2d-1; 49.1 % of mean FCO2). This study shows the role of several variables in the spatio-temporal variability in CO2 fluxes in ABRs during winter and highlights that the complex vegetation–snow–soil interactions in northern environments must be considered when studying what drives the spatial variability in soil carbon emissions during winter.

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 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207