MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391814163 · doi:10.1038/s41558-024-01933-3

Boreal–Arctic wetland methane emissions modulated by warming and vegetation activity

2024· article· en· W4391814163 on OpenAlexaff
Kunxiaojia Yuan, Fa Li, Gavin McNicol, Min Chen, Alison M. Hoyt, Sara Knox, W. J. Riley, Robert B. Jackson, Qing Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Climate Change · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchOffice of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBorealWetlandClimate changeGreenhouse gasArcticEddy covarianceClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesGlobal warmingVegetation (pathology)PermafrostEcosystemTaigaEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wetland methane (CH 4 ) emissions over the Boreal–Arctic region are vulnerable to climate change and linked to climate feedbacks, yet understanding of their long-term dynamics remains uncertain. Here, we upscaled and analysed two decades (2002–2021) of Boreal–Arctic wetland CH 4 emissions, representing an unprecedented compilation of eddy covariance and chamber observations. We found a robust increasing trend of CH 4 emissions (+8.9%) with strong inter-annual variability. The majority of emission increases occurred in early summer (June and July) and were mainly driven by warming (52.3%) and ecosystem productivity (40.7%). Moreover, a 2 °C temperature anomaly in 2016 led to the highest recorded annual CH 4 emissions (22.3 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ) over this region, driven primarily by high emissions over Western Siberian lowlands. However, current-generation models from the Global Carbon Project failed to capture the emission magnitude and trend, and may bias the estimates in future wetland CH 4 emission driven by amplified Boreal–Arctic warming and greening.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations83
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Climate ChangeSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207