Use of Shallow Basins to Restore Cutover Peatlands: Hydrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Basins 20‐, 10‐, and 4‐m wide were excavated 15 to 20 cm into cutover peat fields near Lac Saint Jean, Québec, Canada to facilitate the establishment of Sphagnum mosses. Sphagnum diaspores (fragments) and straw mulch were spread over the excavated surfaces, a control peat field, and a mulch‐protected site without basins. Mean water tables in the 20‐, 10‐, and 4‐m wide basins and the mulch‐protected site were 27.2, 8.3, 11.4, and 9.7 cm higher, respectively, than in the control peat field in May to August 1996. Similar improvements were observed in 1997 (a drier summer). The higher water table was due to lowering of the peat surface with respect to the local water table, retention of meltwater and stormwater by the peripheral ridges formed during excavation, retention of water during drier periods by the groundwater mound beneath the ridges, and mulch. Soil moisture was always higher in the experimental basins than in the control peat field or in the mulch‐protected site, demonstrating the superior soil wetness characteristic of sites with basins and straw mulch. Water tension data signaled the absence of the capillary fringe (i.e., capillary drainage) near the surface for some finite period, thus possibly limiting water for best Sphagnum growth. At the experimental basins and mulch‐protected site, 100% of these periods lasted four or fewer days. In the control peat field, 20% of the periods when capillary drainage had occurred lasted more than four days, with one period of 17 days. The mulch protection alone provided considerable improvement in hydrological conditions compared with the control peat field, but the additional water retained in the experimental basins protected against Sphagnum desiccation and loss during more extreme dry periods.
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".