MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119573393 · doi:10.1002/eco.130

<i>Sphagnum</i> moss moisture retention following the re‐vegetation of degraded peatlands

2010· article· en· W2119573393 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. M. Waddington, Maria C. Lucchese, Tim P. Duval

Bibliographic record

VenueEcohydrology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatSphagnumMossEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Bulk densitySoil scienceWater contentHydrology (agriculture)GeologySoil waterBotanyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Northern peatlands store approximately one‐third of the World's soil carbon through the long‐term accumulation of carbon as peat. However, when peatlands are exploited for Sphagnum moss and horticultural peat, they become degraded and large, persistent sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Recent advances in peatland restoration techniques have succeeded in the re‐vegetation of Sphagnum moss on previously cutover surfaces. The long‐term success of peatland restoration depends on the development of a sufficiently thick new peat layer that has ecohydrological and hydrophysical properties similar to natural peatlands. We determined these properties for an upper (0–4 cm) and lower (8–12 cm) peat layer in a recently restored peatland, a naturally re‐vegetated cutover peatland, and a natural peatland in eastern Québec. The properties of the new peat layer differed significantly between the sites, especially for the lower layer samples. Lower samples for the natural and naturally re‐vegetated sites had a bulk density of 43 ± 5 and 41 ± 11 kg m −3 , respectively, almost twice as high as the value for lower samples from the restored site (24 ± 4 kg m −3 ). Sphagnum rubellum capitula density (ρ C ) was significantly higher ( p &lt; 0·05) for the restored peatland (28 726 # m −2 ) compared to the natural site (26 050 # m −2 ). Residual moisture content at a soil water pressure of − 200 mb (θ r ) was significantly lower ( p &lt; 0·05) for the restored site in comparison to the natural and naturally re‐vegetated sites for the lower samples. This suggests that S. rubellum in a natural peatland is able to hold onto more moisture under increasing soil tension than the same species growing in a restored site likely due to its higher bulk density and relatively more decomposed state. We suggest that it is possible that S. rubellum growing in the harsher cutover peatland environment has possibly allocated more carbohydrates to vertical growth and as a consequence has a lower bulk density and poorer water retention. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcohydrologySame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207