A New Coupled Biogeochemical Modeling Approach Provides Accurate Predictions of Methane and Carbon Dioxide Fluxes Across Diverse Tidal Wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tidal wetlands provide valuable ecosystem services, including storing large amounts of carbon. However, the net exchanges of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) in tidal wetlands are highly uncertain. While several biogeochemical models can operate in tidal wetlands, they have yet to be parameterized and validated against high‐frequency, ecosystem‐scale CO 2 and CH 4 flux measurements across diverse sites. We paired the Cohort Marsh Equilibrium Model (CMEM) with a version of the PEPRMT model called PEPRMT‐Tidal, which considers the effects of water table height, sulfate, and nitrate availability on CO 2 and CH 4 emissions. Using a model‐data fusion approach, we parameterized the model with three sites and validated it with two independent sites, with representation from the three marine coasts of North America. Gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (R eco ) modules explained, on average, 73% of the variation in CO 2 exchange with low model error (normalized root mean square error (nRMSE) <1). The CH 4 module also explained the majority of variance in CH 4 emissions in validation sites ( R 2 = 0.54; nRMSE = 1.15). The PEPRMT‐Tidal‐CMEM model coupling is a key advance toward constraining estimates of greenhouse gas emissions across diverse North American tidal wetlands. Further analyses of model error and case studies during changing salinity conditions guide future modeling efforts regarding four main processes: (a) the influence of salinity and nitrate on GPP, (b) the influence of laterally transported dissolved inorganic C on R eco , (c) heterogeneous sulfate availability and methylotrophic methanogenesis impacts on surface CH 4 emissions, and (d) CH 4 responses to non‐periodic changes in salinity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".