MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4391313665 · doi:10.3390/f15020245

Ecological Restoration in Eastern Canada Using Four Early-Successional Species on Severely Degraded Sites Using a Factorial of Site-Preparation Treatments: Growth and Biomass over Two Years

2024· article· en· W4391313665 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Dominic Galea, John E. Major

Notice bibliographique

RevueForests · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Établissements canadiensNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Resources Canada
Mots-clésBiomass (ecology)EcologyEnvironmental scienceEcological successionRestoration ecologyFactorial experimentGeographyForestryBiologyMathematicsStatistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Barren sites that lack soil are exposed to some of the harshest elements, which include high temperatures, solar radiation, wind, extreme temperature changes, and low soil moisture and nutrient conditions. An ecological restoration experiment was conducted using three site-preparation treatments, straw (S), Meri-Crusher (MC), and coarse woody debris (CWD), in a site-/no site-preparation 2 × 2 × 2 factorial on sites that had been barren for 25 years. In addition, four early successional deciduous species, white birch (WB, Betula papyrifera Marshall), gray birch (GB, Betula populifolia Marshall), green alder (GA, Alnus viridis Vill. subsp. crispa Ait), and speckled alder (SA, Alnus incana L. subsp. rugosa Du Roi), were examined. The two- and three-way interactions were almost all magnitude effects and not rank changes. Gray birch had the greatest overall first-year height growth, followed by GA, SA, and WB, with 12.1, 9.7, 9.6, and 5.6 cm, respectively. Straw doubled first-year growth, while CWD and MC increased first-year height growth by 43 and 31%, respectively. Straw’s ability to retain moisture in the dry summer provided the greatest benefit. In the second year, GA had the greatest height growth, followed by SA, GB, and WB, with 42.5, 30.5, 13.4, and 13.0 cm, respectively. Alders form symbiotic relationships with N-fixing bacteria and, although this was observed in some first-year roots, they did not fully express this advantage at these severely degraded sites until the second year, which allowed them to surpass birches in growth. Site-preparation treatments furthered their height growth affect, with S, and CWD doubling second-year height growth and MC, with an increase of 25%. Alders and birches had, on average, three and one stems, respectively, and the mean stem number of alders increased under S and CWD. After two years, overall stem dry mass had very large genus and species differences with GA, SA, GB, and WB, with 58.4, 30.3, 5.4, and 4.0 g, respectively. The N-fixing ability of alders under these conditions resulted in a 13-fold stem dry mass production increase compared with birches. Straw tripled, CWD doubled, and MC increased stem dry mass by 40%. For WB, site-preparation combinations had an additive effect, whereas GB, GA, and SA had several combined site-preparation treatments showing synergistic results, which were greater than the additive effects of single treatments. Under the control (no site prep.), second-year stem dry masses for WB, GB, GA, and SA were 0.7, 1.4, 17.8, and 0.5 g, respectively. Under the three combined treatments, MC × S × CWD, WB, GB, GA, and SA had 6.6, 12.3, 115.7, and 70.6 g stem dry masses, respectively. SA is ecologically a lowland species, hence the low 0.5 g under the control; however, the result under the three combined treatments demonstrates their combined effectiveness on these barren sites. Green alder seems to be the best adapted to the sites, having the greatest stem dry mass under control, although that was considerably magnified under the site-preparation treatments. This study using combinations of treatments with these early successional species introduces a novel research concept, and similar studies in the literature are currently lacking, creating an opportunity for future exploration.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,597
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,903

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,270
Écart entre enseignants0,217 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2024
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueForestsMême sujetForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesTravaux en français237 207