MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415482237 · doi:10.1126/science.adv7104

Drought-induced peatland carbon loss exacerbated by elevated CO <sub>2</sub> and warming

2025· article· en· W4415482237 on OpenAlexaff
Quan Quan, Jian Zhou, Paul J. Hanson, Daniel Ricciuto, Stephen D. Sebestyen, David J. Weston, Jeffrey P. Chanton, Rachel Wilson, Joel E. Kostka, Yu Zhou, Ning Wei, Lifen Jiang, Melanie A. Mayes, Jonathan M. Stelling, Andrew D. Richardson, Mirindi Eric Dusenge, Danielle A. Way, J. M. Warren, Yiqi Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxidePeatEcosystemCarbon fibersClimate changeGlobal warmingCarbon cycleGreenhouse gas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme drought events are predicted to increase with climate change, yet their impacts on ecosystem carbon dynamics under warming and elevated carbon dioxide (eCO 2 ) remain unclear. In a peatland experiment with five warming treatments each under ambient carbon dioxide (aCO 2 ) and eCO 2 (+500 parts per million), a 2-month extreme drought in 2021 reduced net ecosystem productivity by 444.0 ± 65.8 and 736.6 ± 57.8 grams of carbon per square meter at +9°C under aCO 2 and eCO 2 , respectively—228.6 ± 56.8% and 381.9 ± 83.4% of the reduction at +0°C under aCO 2 . This exacerbation was driven by warming-induced water table decline, prolonged low water tables, and CO 2 -enhanced substrate availability through increased plant carbon inputs. Findings indicate that future climate will greatly amplify carbon loss during extreme drought, reinforcing positive carbon-climate feedbacks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience→Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→