Carbon Characteristics in Restored and Reference Riparian Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the prairie pothole region of Canada, wetlands once utilized for agricultural purposes are being restored in an attempt to return them to their preexisting hydrologic state. The overall objective of this research was to assess differences in riparian soil organic matter (SOM) quality and quantity between reference wetlands, which had never been cropped, and restored wetlands of varying times since restoration. Samples (0–6 cm) were taken from 15 reference and 28 restored sites, and SOM fractions were isolated using a combination of acid hydrolysis and physical separation techniques. Climatic variables (moisture deficit and effective growing degree days) were the primary influence on the chemical composition of the light fraction (LF), as characterized using ramped‐cross‐polarization 13 C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The younger restored soils (1–3 yr) showed significantly lower C concentrations than the reference soils in the bulk samples and both size separates (sand and silt + clay size). There also was an enrichment in 13 C in the LF and acid‐unhydrolyzable residue fractions of these younger restored soils compared with the older restored (7–11 yr) and reference soils, suggesting that this material was more decomposed. Total C concentrations in the restored soils increased with time and reached levels comparable to reference soils after 7 to 11 yr. The C distribution among soil fractions remained different from the reference soils even in the older restored soils, however, indicating that restoration was not complete in terms of C characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".