Assisted revegetation trials in degraded salt‐marshes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. At coastal sites adjacent to the Hudson Bay lowlands, intensive foraging by increasing numbers of lesser snow geeseAnser caerulescens caerulescenshas converted salt‐marsh swards to hypersaline mudflats largely devoid of vegetation. Assisted revegetation trials were undertaken in order to determine the ability of plants to establish in degraded salt‐marsh sediments. 2. Soil plugs of the former dominant graminoids,Puccinellia phryganodesandCarex subspathacea, were transplanted into plots of hypersaline bare soil. Some plots were treated with fertilizer and peat mulch to determine if ameliorations enhance plant growth. 3. Transplants ofP. phryganodesestablished in degraded sediments, but those treated with fertilizer and peat showed significantly higher growth than those in bare soil after two growing seasons. The ratio of the mean basal area of plants in treated plots compared with bare plots was between 1·7 and 4·0 : 1 at different sites. Transplants ofC. subspathaceadid not establish readily in degraded sediments and no growth enhancement was observed with soil amendments. 4. Growth rate and mortality of plants both varied between sites and years, reflecting variation in the frequency of hot, dry weather from late June to early August of each year, and the salinity and water content of soils during that period. The potential for revegetation of mudflats is discussed in the context of the soil degradation processes. Fine‐grain variation in soil conditions presents a major challenge for the restoration of plant assemblages in these coastal marshes. 5. The extent of soil degradation and of vegetation loss makes it unlikely that unassisted revegetation will occur at some sites, even in the absence of goose foraging, without erosion of consolidated sediments and the establishment of plant assemblages in fresh unconsolidated sediments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".