2021
DOI: 10.1007/s00027-021-00830-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The relative importance of seasonality versus regional and network-specific properties in determining the variability of fluvial CO$$_2$$, CH$$_4$$ and dissolved organic carbon across boreal Québec

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Multilevel models ( lme4 package; Bates et al., 2014) were used to examine the variance explained ( variancePartition package; Hoffman & Schadt, 2016) by a series of levels (site, ecozone, month and year) and percent watershed burned, for each chemical species concentration and instantaneous runoff. Multilevel or hierarchical models are appropriate for this data set given its observational nature with the 212 observations nested in geographical areas and where responses are correlated over time and not independent (Hutchins et al., 2021). We report variance explained by each level in the multilevel models, which provides an estimate of effect size and relative importance.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multilevel models ( lme4 package; Bates et al., 2014) were used to examine the variance explained ( variancePartition package; Hoffman & Schadt, 2016) by a series of levels (site, ecozone, month and year) and percent watershed burned, for each chemical species concentration and instantaneous runoff. Multilevel or hierarchical models are appropriate for this data set given its observational nature with the 212 observations nested in geographical areas and where responses are correlated over time and not independent (Hutchins et al., 2021). We report variance explained by each level in the multilevel models, which provides an estimate of effect size and relative importance.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To constrain the effects of varying J CO2 , J CH4 , and stream width on upscaled efflux, we report the mean and range of upscaled fluvial J CO2 and J CH4 . These estimates do not capture fine‐scale heterogeneity in aquatic gas efflux within individual stream reaches (e.g., Crawford et al., 2017), yet our sampling across stream orders attempts to capture variability in gas concentrations across scales (e.g., Hutchins et al., 2021) and allows for a first estimate of watershed‐scale CO 2 and CH 4 efflux in western Arctic Canada. To assess how the types of carbon comprising fluvial fluxes varied among sites and regions, we calculated fluxes of individual carbon species relative to the total carbon flux at each site, henceforth termed proportional flux: p = species flux/total flux, where total flux equals the sum of efflux ( J CO2 and J CH4 ) and lateral fluxes of DIC, DOC, PIC, and POC.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%