MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392586048 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-4219

Influence of human disturbance on carbon efflux in a subarctic boreal forest

2024· preprint· en· W4392586048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dragos Vas, Elizabeth Corriveau, William Baxter, Lindsay Gaimaro, Robyn A. Barbato

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubarctic climateTaigaDisturbance (geology)BorealEnvironmental scienceCarbon cycleEcologyCarbon fibersGeographyForestryPhysical geographyEcosystemGeologyBiologyGeomorphologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil respiration plays a crucial role in the carbon cycle and has significant implications for climate change. Understanding the dynamics of soil respiration in the subarctic and arctic is essential to more accurately predict carbon fluxes and their potential responses to disturbances, as these systems hold an estimated 1,400 Pg of carbon (National Snow and Ice Data Center). This research focuses on two primary objectives: (1) to compare soil respiration rates between undisturbed and disturbed areas located in a boreal forest ecosystem near the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, and (2) to identify the key environmental and geochemical factors influencing soil respiration in these environments. Vegetation at the undisturbed site consists of a black spruce (Picea mariana) canopy, woody shrubs dominated by Labrador tea (Rhododendron tomentosum and groenlandicum), low shrubs (Vaccinium spp.), several mosses (Sphagnum and Spinulum), and reindeer lichen (Cladonia rangiferina). Grasses (Poaceae), sedges (Cyperaceae), and woody shrubs (Salix spp. and Rhododendron tomentosum) constitute the vegetation structure at the disrupted location. The disturbance was caused by trail construction and firewood harvesting. We used an automated carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) efflux closed chamber system to measure soil respiration rates over the course of one year. Environmental parameters, including soil temperature, volumetric water content, and seasonal thaw depth, were also measured to assess their influence on soil respiration and to investigate their utility as environmental tracers for impacting C flux, seasonally.Preliminary results indicate that soil respiration rates measured at the disturbed site were higher, 2.43 +/- 0.14 g of C-CO2 m−2/day−1, as compared to the undisturbed area, 2.13 +/- 0.23 g of C-CO2 m−2/day−1. Average soil temperature and water content were -0.53 °C and 0.24 m3/m3 respectively in the undisturbed soils. The disturbed site had a higher average soil temperature of 0.30 °C, while maintaining the same soil water content value of 0.24 m3/m3. Maximum seasonal thaw depths at the undisturbed sites were approximately 1/3, -58 +/- 3 cm, as compared to the disturbed sites, -148 +/- 29 cm. These differences are likely due to the change in vegetation cover, which contributes to elevated soil respiration rates.These findings show that disturbance events enhance soil respiration rates, possibly due to the deepening of the active layer, unlocking carbon in organic matter that is metabolized by the soil microbial communities. The increased soil respiration in the disturbed area may be attributed to the disruption of the original vegetation cover (e.g., moss and black spruce), which leads to an increased soil temperature and accelerated decomposition of organic matter. These findings highlight the importance of considering land disturbances for carbon models and suggest that vegetation disturbance can be used as a proxy for landscape-scale active layer dynamics in subarctic regions. The results contribute to our understanding of the carbon cycle in these ecosystems. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term effects of disturbances on soil respiration and to refine our understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving these processes.

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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→