Developing protocols for the collection and valuation of wild native seed from the Hudson Bay Lowland.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Native species are being more commonly used and often even mandated in restoration projects. However, commercial seed sources are often unavailable or not of a suitable provenance. Collecting seed from wild sources is an alternative, but it can be challenging. The objectives of this study were to: 1) identify key attributes that influence the value of seed and to evaluate and quantify these differences for 57 native species with potential for restoration in subarctic Ontario; 2) determine if fertilizers could increase the seed yield of wild species with a low seed output; 3) determine and compile simple and effective protocols for the collection, processing, storage, and germination of 60 wild species native to northeastern Ontario. Field studies were conducted at De Beers’ Victor diamond mine, located in the Hudson Bay Lowland in north-central Canada from 2014 to 2016. To complete the first objective, I evaluated the attributes that affect the time and cost of using wild seeds from upland native plants. Taking into account the regional abundance of species, collection obstacles, requirements for identification, ease of processing and storing seeds, and propagation effort, I ranked the results for each species within each attribute. Each category provided a relative value reflective of the effort required to collect, process, store, and propagate seed of a given species. I demonstrate how these relative values could be used to prioritize species in revegetation planning. These relative seed values can also be used to determine seed prices for a variety of projects and locations. For my second objective, I fertilized wild populations of American vetch (Vicia americana) and silverweed (Potentilla anserina). These herbaceous upland species may be useful in reclamation, but had low seed yields in 2014. Fertilization had no effect on seed yield and neither species set seed, regardless of treatment, except for a single American vetch plot. I discuss various environmental factors that may have had an influence on the poor seed yields. Fertilizing wild populations may not be an effective approach to increase seed yield for these species in a subarctic environment, although testing a variety of fertilizer rates and environments could guide future studies. \nFor the final objective, I field-tested seed collection and seed processing protocols for native species desired for revegetation, and I compiled information from the literature on their storage and propagation requirements. I produced both a general guide and profiles for 60 species. The guide is written in lay language, with many photographs and provides an overview of the required knowledge for harvesting seed from wild plants. This guide will be useful to people who wish to begin collecting seed for any reason, including restoration projects, nursery establishment and even gardening. The demand for native and local seed is growing. With increased mining development in remote areas, the demand for local native seed for restoration will continue to increase. This research will contribute to the knowledge of collecting wild seed from native species and improve the success of these collection programs. This work could provide a base for small business development in remote communities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».