Evaluating modeling approaches for estimating net ecosystem exchange in Canadian peatlands
Résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Peatlands are globally significant carbon reservoirs, yet models for peatland carbon cycling are often limited to the site level. To enable the prediction of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) fluxes in peatlands where no in situ measurements exist, machine learning algorithms must be trained on in situ CO 2 flux measurements from multiple sites. In this study, year-round eddy covariance (EC)-derived net ecosystem exchange (NEE) measurements and 32 hydroclimatic predictor variables were compiled for 21 Canadian peatland sites spanning seven ecoregions. A comprehensive feature selection workflow carried out on the predictor variables (features) identified that model performance stabilized at four features, which were: evapotranspiration, burn area index, normalized difference water index, and modeled soil moisture. Four machine learning algorithms: ElasticNet Regression (EN), Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LGBM), Random Forest Regression (RF), and Support Vector Regression (SVR) were trained and evaluated using held-out test data. The best performing model was the LGBM model, which was then assessed for generalizability via a leave-one-ecoregion-out sensitivity analysis, which highlighted the necessity of ensuring predictor variables fall within the range of the training data before applying this model framework to additional sites. These findings offer a framework for regional scaling to improve Canada’s spatially explicit CO 2 emission estimates.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Evaluating modeling approaches for estimating net ecosystem exchange in Canadian peatlands
- Date Crossref
- 24/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.