The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evasion of CO2 from streams – The dominant component of the carbon export through the aquatic conduit in a boreal landscape
Abstract
Evasion of gaseous carbon (C) from streams is often poorly quantified in landscape C budgets. Even though the potential importance of the capillary network of streams as C conduits across the land–water–atmosphere interfaces is sometimes mentioned, low‐order streams are often left out of budget estimates due to being poorly characterized in terms of gas exchange and even areal surface coverage. We show that evasion of C is greater than all the total dissolved C (both organic and inorganic) exported downstream in the waters of a boreal landscape. In this study evasion of carbon dioxide (CO2) from running waters within a 67 km 2 boreal catchment was studied. During a 4 year period (2006–2009) 13 streams were sampled on 104 different occasions for dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). From a locally determined model of gas exchange properties, we estimated the daily CO2 evasion with a high‐resolution (5 × 5 m) grid‐based stream evasion model comprising the entire ~100 km stream network. Despite the low areal coverage of stream surface, the evasion of CO2 from the stream network constituted 53% (5.0 (±1.8) g C m−2 yr−1) of the entire stream C flux (9.6 (±2.4) g C m−2 yr−1) (lateral as DIC, DOC, and vertical as CO2). In addition, 72% of the total CO2 loss took place already in the first‐ and second‐order streams. This study demonstrates the importance of including CO2 evasion from low‐order boreal streams into landscape C budgets as it more than doubled the magnitude of the aquatic conduit for C from this landscape. Neglecting this term will consequently result in an overestimation of the terrestrial C sink strength in the boreal landscape.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Terrestrial carbon inputs to inland waters: A current synthesis of estimates and uncertainty
Drake, T. W., Raymond, P. A., & Spencer, R. G. M. (2018) · Limnology and Oceanography Letters · doi:10.1002/lol2.10055 · Cited by 707
The land-to-ocean loops of the global carbon cycle
Regnier, P., Resplandy, L., Najjar, R. G., & Ciais, P. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04339-9 · Cited by 688
Lapierre, J.-F., Guillemette, F., Berggren, M., & del Giorgio, P. A. (2013) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms3972 · Cited by 334
The role of waterborne carbon in the greenhouse gas balance of drained and re-wetted peatlands
Evans, C. D., Renou-Wilson, F., & Strack, M. (2016) · Aquatic Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00027-015-0447-y · Cited by 139
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallin, M. B., Grabs, T., Buffam, I., Laudon, H., Ågren, A., Öquist, M. G., & Bishop, K.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-12-15
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 785-797
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2151198392
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evasion of CO2 from streams – The dominant component of the carbon export through the aquatic conduit in a boreal landscape. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.12083
- The paper
- Wallin, M. B., Grabs, T., Buffam, I., Laudon, H., Ågren, A., Öquist, M. G., & Bishop, K. (2013). Evasion of CO2 from streams – The dominant component of the carbon export through the aquatic conduit in a boreal landscape. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12083
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.