Growing season water balance of wetland reclamation test cells, Fort McMurray, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the oil sands mining region near Fort McMurray, Alberta, strategies to construct wetlands and peatlands and methods to evaluate their success are just beginning. Reclamation of wetlands is particularly challenging in this region as growing seasons are short, precipitation is variable and often limiting, and the presence of elevated salinity associated with the mining process can be harmful to vegetation. As part of their reclamation programme, Syncrude Canada Ltd constructed a series of test plots (termed cells) to examine specific procedures and management strategies associated with wetland reclamation. In this study, water balance of 12 cells (each ~400 m 2 in area) with different soil and vegetation treatments were studied over two growing seasons to understand the influence of soil salvage, vegetation, and placement strategy on water balance components. Cells were constructed in (i) the summer or winter, (ii) with either stockpiled material planted with vegetation or with soils directly transplanted from a nearby wetland and (iii) with soil depths of 15, 50 and 100 cm. Cells were built on a liner to eliminate leakage and were watered using an irrigation system along with receiving precipitation inputs. In 2010, cells were irrigated between ~100 and 400 mm, and water tables were maintained at or near the surface for the duration of the growing season at most cells. In 2011, watering was reduced considerably, and water tables were on average much lower. Evapotranspiration (ET) losses measured using lysimetres varied throughout the season and among cells. ET rates were greater in 2010 than in 2011 because of wet conditions at the surface, and cells placed in the winter and with shallower organic soils (15 cm) also had enhanced ET. Cumulative water balance suggests that some cells had considerable leakage despite being constructed atop a geotextile. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".