MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling carbon burial along the land to ocean aquatic continuum: Current status, challenges and perspectives

2024· article· en· W4396216809 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniela Henry, Núria Catalán, Biel Obrador, Rafael Marcé

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth-Science Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsEuropean CommissionMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesDepartament d'Empresa i Coneixement, Generalitat de CatalunyaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsEarth system scienceTerminologyCarbon cycleEcosystemEnvironmental scienceEarth scienceAquatic ecosystemWater cycleTerrestrial ecosystemEnvironmental resource managementGlobal changeEcologyGeologyClimate changeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the reallocation of atmospheric anthropogenic carbon (C) in the different compartments of the Earth System is a priority in Earth Science. Global numerical modeling of the C cycle stands as one of the fundamental tools for understanding how C cycles between the atmosphere, continents, and the ocean. However, Earth System Models and other large-scale models still lack a comprehensive depiction of the role of aquatic ecosystems along the Land-to-Ocean Aquatic Continuum (LOAC) in modulating organic carbon (OC) exchanges between terrestrial ecosystems and the ocean. The capacity of aquatic ecosystems to sequester organic carbon in the sediments they accumulate (i.e., organic carbon burial (OCB)) is a fundamental process for understanding the role of the LOAC in the global C cycle. Yet, the inclusion of this process into large-scale numerical models of the C cycle is still in its early stage. Here, we review the ecosystem processes involved in OCB along the LOAC and the terminology used by different authors, OCB measurement methodologies, the structure of large-scale C models, OCB rates available in the literature, and other data sources for modeling purposes. Our goal is to pinpoint the obstacles and potential solutions for incorporating OCB along the LOAC into Earth System Models and other large-scale applications. We identify the lack of language harmonization across different scientific disciplines working with ecosystems along the LOAC as a major caveat, and suggest a controlled vocabulary about OCB to assist addressing this challenge. We have compiled an updated global data set of OBC rates across ecosystems along the LOAC (lakes, reservoirs, floodplains, and coastal ecosystems), encompassing 1163 OCB rate values corresponding to 713 individual ecosystems, and showing strong biases in its distribution across the global geography and ecosystem types. We also show that virtually no existing large-scale C model incorporates OCB along the LOAC, although several have already made first steps towards the inclusion of this process at the global scale. Finally, we analyze the challenges and potential solutions to help paving the road for integrating OCB along the LOAC in large-scale models of the C cycle, including the pressing need for a multidisciplinary perspective in OCB modeling studies that brings together researchers from the several disciplines involved in the study of the ecosystems pertaining to the LOAC.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designOther design
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth-Science ReviewsSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207