MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392935374 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad3565

Soil incubation methods lead to large differences in inferred methane production temperature sensitivity

2024· article· en· W4392935374 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Li, R. F. Grant, Kuang‐Yu Chang, Suzanne B. Hodgkins, Jinyun Tang, Alexandra B. Cory, Z. A. Mekonnen, S. R. Saleska, Eoin Brodie, R. K. Varner, Virginia I. Rich, Rachel Wilson, Jeffrey P. Chanton, Patrick Crill, W. J. Riley

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchU.S. Department of EnergyDivision of Biological InfrastructurePolarforskningssekretariatetOffice of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIncubationEnvironmental sciencePermafrostBiogeochemical cyclePrimary productionBiomass (ecology)Substrate (aquarium)EcosystemIncubation periodEnvironmental chemistryAtmospheric sciencesSoil scienceEcologyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantifying the temperature sensitivity of methane (CH4) production is crucial for predicting how wetland ecosystems will respond to climate warming. Typically, the temperature sensitivity (often quantified as a Q10 value) is derived from laboratory incubation studies and then used in biogeochemical models. However, studies report wide variation in incubation-inferred Q10 values, with a large portion of this variation remaining unexplained. Here we applied observations in a thawing permafrost peatland (Stordalen Mire) and a well-tested process-rich model (ecosys) to interpret incubation observations and investigate controls on inferred CH4 production temperature sensitivity. We developed a field-storage-incubation modeling approach to mimic the full incubation sequence, including field sampling at a particular time in the growing season, refrigerated storage, and laboratory incubation, followed by model evaluation. We found that CH4 production rates during incubation are regulated by substrate availability and active microbial biomass of key microbial functional groups, which are affected by soil storage duration and temperature. Seasonal variation in substrate availability and active microbial biomass of key microbial functional groups led to strong time-of-sampling impacts on CH4 production. CH4 production is higher with less perturbation post-sampling, i.e. shorter storage duration and lower storage temperature. We found a wide range of inferred Q10 values (1.2–3.5), which we attribute to incubation temperatures, incubation duration, storage duration, and sampling time. We also show that Q10 values of CH4 production are controlled by interacting biological, biochemical, and physical processes, which cause the inferred Q10 values to differ substantially from those of the component processes. Terrestrial ecosystem models that use a constant Q10 value to represent temperature responses may therefore predict biased soil carbon cycling under future climate scenarios.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
DomainMethods
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207