Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39167659›Full record

ArticleScience advances2024

Precision and bias of carbon storage estimations in wetland and mangrove sediments.

Exequiel Ezcurra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Exequiel EzcurraDepartment of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3505-5859

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peaty sediments in coastal wetlands play an important role in the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and its belowground storage. Sediment cores are used to quantify organic matter (OM) density, estimated by multiplying the bulk density of a core segment by its OM fraction. This method can be imprecise, as repeated samples often differ widely. Recent studies have shown that sediment bulk density and OM fraction are not independent but tightly related by a function called the ideal-mixing model. Thus, the bulk density of the sediment can be directly estimated from its OM fraction. Statistical theory and simulations demonstrate that the high variance in the product estimation of OM density is the result of error propagation in the product of two functionally related variables with independent errors. Estimating OM density in wetland sediments using the ideal-mixing model is more precise than the traditionally used product estimate, especially in highly organic sediments.

Identifiers

PMID39167659
PMCPMC11421683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.