Differing Effects of Biosolids on Native Plants in Grasslands of Southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine if application of biosolids is beneficial for restoring semiarid grasslands. The effects of a one-time surface application of biosolids at a rate of 20 Mg ha on individual plant species and plant community composition were examined at three degraded semiarid grassland sites located in the southern interior of British Columbia, Canada. Biosolids application did not result in desirable changes in plant species composition at the two drier sites (with annual precipitation <400 mm) yet led to overall positive plant species changes at the least dry site (with annual precipitation of 400 mm). An important late-seral species of semiarid grasslands, bluebunch wheatgrass [ (Pursh) Á. Löve], did not respond or decreased at the two drier sites but increased at the least dry site. Exotic invasive plant species increased on all sites. The total vegetative cover of native perennial grasses increased from 41 to 99% at the least dry site, with important decreases in low-growing, early-seral forb species. Although cheatgrass ( L.) was not significantly increased by the biosolids treatment, the dominance of cheatgrass and lower growing season precipitation at the two drier sites were likely key reasons for the poor biosolids restoration success at these sites. Despite some concerns, there is potential to use biosolids to restore grassland plant communities successfully within 4 or 5 yr on more mesic grassland sites; however, biosolids use on drier sites where exotic invasives are present cannot be recommended.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".