MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1847393911 · doi:10.14288/1.0094810

Effects of fertilization on the nutrient and organic matter dynamics of reclaimed coal-mined areas and native grasslands in Southeastern British Columbia

2010· article· en· W1847393911 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Ziemkiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrientEnvironmental scienceOrganic matterLand reclamationHuman fertilizationCoalAgroforestryGeographyEcologyAgronomyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reclamation of coal mining disturbances has been undertaken on a large scale in British Columbia since 1972. Mining occurs primarily in a narrow belt in southeastern B.C. from the international boundary northward parallel to the continental divide to the headwaters of the Elk River at elevations of 1,000 m to 2,300 m. Since reclamation began, most treated areas have been fertilized annually as a precaution against reclamation failure. While this practice has often maintained productive and attractive reclamation sites it was not known whether the maintenance fertilization was necessary and what effect it was having on plant community development. To answer these questions two productive reclaimed areas and two adjacent native, undisturbed grasslands were selected. One set of plots was amid montane vegetation and the other amid subalpine vegetation. On each of the four sites, paired plots were established and shoot, detritus and root biomass levels were measured over a 14-month period. One of the paired plots was fertilized in the spring. N, P and K analyses were done on soil and plant samples so that organic matter and nutrient flux in the four plant community compartments could be expressed as mass per unit ground surface. Two phases in reclaimed area development, were identified. The development phase was characterized by detritus accumulation and minor root mass turnover in the fall. Fertilization had a profound influence on this phase mainly in stimulating shoot production though root production was stimulated to a lesser degree. The withdrawal of maintenance fertilization resulted in a severe drop in production and nutrient accumulation with a large part of yearly N and P uptake immobilized in surface detritus by fall. The subalpine reclaimed area represented this phase. The data indicate that maintenance fertilization will be necessary to prevent degeneration of the plant community. The montane reclaimed area represented the mature phase of development. This phase may not indicate attainment of a steady state, but it appeared to be capable of storing and cycling sufficient nutrients that withdrawal of maintenance fertilization resulted in no apparent adverse effects. Rather, due to the midsummer drought, fertilization of this reclaimed area inhibited root production while it stimulated shoot production. The additional shoot production could not be maintained through the dry period, so that shoot standing crop through the summer was not influenced by fertilization. The native areas were characterized by massive root systems which caused the bulk of nutrient exchanges to occur within plant and from root to soil to root. Thus the surface detritus system played a minor role in nutrient cycling relative to the reclaimed areas. Fertilization of natives areas stimulated shoot production and detrital decomposition so root:shoot ratios narrowed and detritus levels dropped after fertilization. The reclaimed areas were less stable than the native areas in relation to water and nutrient stress. However, the montane reclaimed area seemed self-sufficient in. nutrients and should continue to develop without annual fertilization. The subalpine reclaimed area is not nutrient self-sufficient and will require continued treatment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.140
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicCoal and Its By-productsFrench-language works237,207