Initiation of microtopography in revegetated cutover peatlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Question: How many years are required for a gradient of microtopography to be initiated in revegetated cutover peatlands and become similar to natural bogs? Location: Newly formed Sphagnum carpets on cutover peatlands that revegetated spontaneously after site abandonment (in Estonia), or following active restoration (in Canada) and on undisturbed natural bogs nearby. Methods: Moss surface height was measured along linear transects above a local reference level (the lowest point for a given transect). Heights of at least 20 cm were associated with hummocks. Frequency distributions of surface height and principal component analyses (separately for Canada and Estonia) were conducted to follow the evolution of microtopography in revegetated sites and their similarity with those of natural peatlands. In Canada, regressions were also performed to estimate the time required for the microtopography in revegetated cutover peatlands to become similar to that found in natural bogs. Results: Only 10–30 yr were needed for microstructures comparable to those in natural bogs to develop on restored peatlands where Sphagnum diaspores have been reintroduced. However, this process may take more than a century in cutover peatlands left to revegetate spontaneously. Conclusions: In cutover peatlands with spontaneous revegetation, hummock–hollow formation starts on bare peat which lacks both plant propagules and viable seed banks, and the initiation of microstructures is probably more akin to the process that occurs naturally. Nonetheless, hummock–hollow microtopography resembling that found in natural bogs without pools appeared, in all of the examined cutover peatlands, over periods that are short in terms of peatland development time-scales. Active peatland restoration could effectively reduce the time required for initiation of microtopography by about 70 yr.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".