Peatland evaporation across hemispheres: contrasting controls and sensitivity to climate warming driven by plant functional types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Peatlands store disproportionally large amounts of carbon per unit area, a function that is dependent on maintaining high and stable water tables. Climate change is likely to negatively impact carbon storage in peatlands, in part due to increases in vapour pressure deficit (VPD) driving higher evaporation (E) rates. However, the response of E to increasing VPD depends on the dominant vegetation type within peatlands. In this study, we used multiple years of eddy covariance (EC) measurements to compare E regimes at two peatlands with contrasting vegetation types – Kopuatai bog in Aotearoa / New Zealand, dominated by the vascular wire rush Empodisma robustum, and Mer Bleue bog in Canada, a “typical” shrub- and moss-dominated Northern Hemisphere peatland. We examined seasonal variability in E and equilibrium E (Eeq), energy balance partitioning, and the response of E, evaporative fraction (EF), and canopy conductance (gc) to VPD. Mean annual E was 45 % lower than mean annual Eeq at Kopuatai but only 16 % lower at Mer Bleue, demonstrating much greater limitations on E at Kopuatai. In addition, the mean midday (10:00–14:30 local standard time) dry-canopy Bowen ratio (β) at Kopuatai was 2.0 compared to 0.8 at Mer Bleue; therefore, the sensible heat flux (H) dominated over the latent heat flux (LE) at Kopuatai and vice versa at Mer Bleue. The responses of E, EF, and gc to increasing VPD at Kopuatai demonstrated stronger limitations on evaporative water loss for VPD > 0.7 kPa compared to Mer Bleue. The observed limitations at Kopuatai were attributed to strong stomatal control by E. robustum due to the rapid decrease in gc with increasing VPD; however, surface E could also be limited by its dense standing litter. At Mer Bleue, however, E was only weakly limited at VPD > 2 kPa, likely due to weak stomatal control over transpiration by the sparse shrub canopy and relatively large surface E from Sphagnum carpets. As such, the results of this study suggest that E. robustum drives a greater “hydrological resistance” to increasing VPD than the vegetation at Mer Bleue, leading to greater water retention at Kopuatai. This may enable greater resilience of the carbon sink function at Kopuatai to climatic warming and drying than at Mer Bleue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".