MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392932145 · doi:10.5194/bg-21-1301-2024

Resolving heterogeneous fluxes from tundra halves the growing season carbon budget

2024· article· en· W4392932145 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Ludwig, Luke D. Schiferl, Jacqueline Hung, Susan M. Natali, R. Commane

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Polar ProgramsGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEddy covarianceEnvironmental scienceTundraAtmospheric sciencesEcosystemLand coverEvapotranspirationHydrology (agriculture)Land useEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Landscapes are often assumed to be homogeneous when interpreting eddy covariance fluxes, which can lead to biases when gap-filling and scaling up observations to determine regional carbon budgets. Tundra ecosystems are heterogeneous at multiple scales. Plant functional types, soil moisture, thaw depth, and microtopography, for example, vary across the landscape and influence net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) fluxes. With warming temperatures, Arctic ecosystems are changing from a net sink to a net source of carbon to the atmosphere in some locations, but the Arctic's carbon balance remains highly uncertain. In this study we report results from growing season NEE and CH4 fluxes from an eddy covariance tower in the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta in Alaska. We used footprint models and Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods to unmix eddy covariance observations into constituent land-cover fluxes based on high-resolution land-cover maps of the region. We compared three types of footprint models and used two land-cover maps with varying complexity to determine the effects of these choices on derived ecosystem fluxes. We used artificially created gaps of withheld observations to compare gap-filling performance using our derived land-cover-specific fluxes and traditional gap-filling methods that assume homogeneous landscapes. We also compared resulting regional carbon budgets when scaling up observations using heterogeneous and homogeneous approaches. Traditional gap-filling methods performed worse at predicting artificially withheld gaps in NEE than those that accounted for heterogeneous landscapes, while there were only slight differences between footprint models and land-cover maps. We identified and quantified hot spots of carbon fluxes in the landscape (e.g., late growing season emissions from wetlands and small ponds). We resolved distinct seasonality in tundra growing season NEE fluxes. Scaling while assuming a homogeneous landscape overestimated the growing season CO2 sink by a factor of 2 and underestimated CH4 emissions by a factor of 2 when compared to scaling with any method that accounts for landscape heterogeneity. We show how Bayesian MCMC, analytical footprint models, and high-resolution land-cover maps can be leveraged to derive detailed land-cover carbon fluxes from eddy covariance time series. These results demonstrate the importance of landscape heterogeneity when scaling carbon emissions across the Arctic.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207