MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162029094 · doi:10.82308/30989

The effect of beaver pond drainage on CO and CH fluxes in Canadian temperate peatland /

2001· dissertation· en· W7162029094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Birgit. Isernhagen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeaverHydrology (agriculture)PeatSink (geography)Flux (metallurgy)Water tableDrainageTemperate climate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beaver ponds are important parts of peatland landscapes and have high fluxes of CO2 and CH4. This study was undertaken in Mer Bleue Bog, Ontario, to determine the response of a beaver pond to drainage (lowering by 25 cm) as a sink or source of carbon. Plant distribution was changed in response to a new water table gradient. Each vegetation community and the remaining beaver pond were sampled for fluxes of CO2 and CH4 from mid-April to end-November, 1999, one year after the water table was lowered. A flow-through chamber system was used to measure CO2 flux from vegetated sites. Mean daily CO2 flux ranged from 0.4--1.6 g CO2-C M-2 (positive denoting uptake from the atmosphere). Variations in CO2 flux amongst the sites along the gradient could not be related to differences in plant species composition, peat temperature, or water table. The mean daily CO2 emission measured by a static floating chamber on the pond area was -24.1 g CO2-C m-2. A closed chamber was used to measure CH4 on vegetated sites. Daily CH4 fluxes ranged from 1 to -159 mg CH4-C m-2, increasing from the beaver pond margin to the open water surface. The water table explained 83% of the seasonal average CH 4 flux variability and the vegetation added another 11%. The mean daily CH4 flux measured by a static floating chamber on the pond area was -54 mg CH4-C m-2. The seasonal measurements were integrated into an areal estimate of CO 2 and CH4 flux for the beaver pond area prior to and after drainage. The beaver pond area sequestered 96 g m-2 before drainage (104 g CO2-C m-2 and -8 g CH 4-C m-2), and the same area more than doubled the uptake to 231 g m-2 after being drained (233 g CO 2-C m-2 and -3 g CH4-C m -2).

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207