MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394850093 · doi:10.1029/2023gb007909

A Carbon Source in a Carbon Sink: Carbon Dioxide and Methane Dynamics in Open‐Water Peatland Pools

2024· article· en· W4394850093 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pierre Taillardat, Annika Linkhorst, Charles P. Deblois, Antonin Prijac, Laure Gandois, Alain Tremblay, Michelle Garneau

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGroupe de recherche interuniversitaire en limnologieHydro-QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsPeatCarbon dioxideEnvironmental chemistryMethanogenesisEnvironmental scienceWater tableDissolved organic carbonGreenhouse gasCarbon sinkCarbon fibersBiogeochemical cycleCarbon cycleMethaneBogSink (geography)ChemistryHydrology (agriculture)EcosystemGroundwaterEcologyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Peatlands store organic carbon available for decomposition and transfer to neighboring water bodies, which can ultimately generate carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) emissions. The objective of this study was to clarify the biogeochemical functioning of open‐water peatland pools and their influence on carbon budgets at the ecosystem and global scale. Continuously operated automated equipment and monthly manual measurements were used to describe the CO 2 and CH 4 dynamics in boreal ombrotrophic peatland pools and porewater (Québec, Canada) over the growing seasons 2019 and 2020. The peat porewater stable carbon isotope ratios (δ 13 C) for both CO 2 (median δ 13 C‐CO 2 : −3.8‰) and CH 4 (median δ 13 C‐CH 4 : −64.30‰) suggested that hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis was the predominant degradation pathway in peat. Open‐water pools were supersaturated in CO 2 and CH 4 and received most of these dissolved carbon greenhouse gases (C‐GHG) from peat porewater input. Throughout the growing season, higher CO 2 concentrations and fluxes in pools were measured when the water table was low—suggesting a steady release of CO 2 from deep peat porewater. Higher CH 4 ebullition and diffusion occurred in August when bottom water and peat temperatures were the highest. While this study demonstrates that peatland pools are chimneys of CO 2 and CH 4 stored in peat, it also shows that the C‐GHG concentrations and flux rates in peat pools are comparable to other aquatic systems of the same size. Although peatlands are often considered uniform entities, our study highlights their biogeochemical heterogeneity, which, if considered, substantially influences their net carbon balance with the atmosphere.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biogeochemical CyclesSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207