MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407266378 · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02070-1

Wildfires mediate carbon transfer from land to lakes across boreal and temperate regions

2025· article· en· W4407266378 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mathilde Bélair, Ian M. McCullough, Christopher T. Filstrup, Jennifer A. Brentrup, Jean‐François Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBorealTemperate climateEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersTaigaCarbon stockEcologyPhysical geographyGeographyClimate changeForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfires can disrupt carbon transport from land to water, but how lake carbon cycling responds to fires remains unclear. Here, we analyzed the concentration and dominance of the main carbon forms in total carbon pools in 54 lakes (34 burned, 20 control) across 3 regions of Quebec, Canada and Minnesota, USA from recent wildfires ( < 1 – 3 years). Lakes in burned watersheds had up to double the dissolved organic carbon concentrations of control lakes, and the fire effect was most apparent when accounting for climate and landscape drivers (e.g., catchment to lake area ratio) of lake carbon cycling. The greater quantity and dominance of dissolved organic carbon in burned lakes over other carbon forms with different turnover rates and fates suggest a potential fire-mediated carbon export up to several years post fire with a yet undetermined fate in northern forested watersheds and with important implications for regional to global carbon budgets. Wildfires can increase lake carbon concentrations by up to double, mostly in the form of dissolved organic carbon, according to analyses of carbon in fire-disturbed and control lakes across Quebec and Minnesota.

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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207