MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139360834

From reclamation to restoration: native grass species for revegetation in northeast British Columbia

2009· dissertation· en· W2139360834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valerie Huff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevegetationLand reclamationForestryArchaeologyGeographyNative plantEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryMining engineeringEngineeringIntroduced speciesEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grasses are widely used in revegetation to control erosion, build soil and maintain habitat. In northeast British Columbia, non-native grass species are commonly seeded to reclaim industrially disturbed sites. Widespread concern about degradation of biodiversity and key ecological processes has led to increasing value placed on native species and management practices leading to a more resilient landscape. I undertook this study to fill the restoration knowledge gap relating to native grasses in northeast BC. I did an extensive inventory of grasses on 217 sites in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Functional traits were measured in the field and in a greenhouse growth experiment. I found ninety-nine grass species occuring in the region, 70% of which are native. The number, proportion and extent of non-native grasses are increasing and four of these – Poa pratensis, Festuca rubra, Bromus inermis, and Phleum pratense represented almost a quarter of all occurrences. Several native species were common throughout the region: Calamagrostis canadensis, Leymus innovatus, Elymus trachycaulus, Poa palustris and Agrostis scabra. Other native species, including Festuca altaica, Koeleria macrantha, Pascopyrum smithii, and Schizachne purpurascens, strongly favoured intact habitats. Elevation, soil moisture regime, proportion of bare ground, and land use were significant factors related to local grass species composition and abundance. Agrostis scabra, Alopecurus aequalis, Beckmannia syzigachne, Bromus ciliatus, Cinna latifolia, Deschampsia cespitosa, Elymus alaskanus, Elymus trachycaulus, Festuca saximontana and Hordeum jubatum grew commonly on severely damaged well sites. Field measurements for Specific Leaf Area (SLA) and Leaf Dry Matter Content (LDMC) of 11 species showed an inverse correlation. Bromus ciliatus, Bromus pumpellianus, and Elymus trachycaulus had high SLA/low LDMC linked to rapid growth, whereas Festuca altaica, Deschampsia cespitosa, and Calamagrostis stricta had low SLA/high LDMC linked to slow growth and persistence. In the greenhouse experiment, Poa palustris, Cinna latifolia and Bromus ciliatus produced the most overall biomass and Pascopyrum smithii and Poa palustris produced the greatest aboveground biomass. Calamagrostis stricta, Poa palustris, Elymus glaucus, Leymus innovatus and Pascopyrum smithii exhibited clonal growth. Beckmannia syzigachne, Bromus ciliatus Cinna latifolia produced viable seed during the 135-day experiment. Considering all attributes five native species, Calamagrostis canadensis, Elymus trachycaulus, Poa palustris, Leymus innovatus, and Agrostis scabra are recommended for general restoration use in northeast B.C. Other native species show promise when matched to particular site conditions, including Alopecurus aequalis, Arctagrostis latifolia, Beckmannia syzigachne, Bromus ciliatus, Calamagrostis stricta, Cinna latifolia, Deschampsia cespitosa, Elymus glaucus, Festuca saximontana, Glyceria striata, Hordeum jubatum, Koeleria macrantha, Pascopyrum smithii, Poa alpina, Schizachne purpurascens and Trisetum spicatum. This information will be valuable to land managers interested in moving beyond reclamation to ecological restoration of sites disturbed by oil and gas development. Developing practices that are environmentally sound and socially acceptable requires ongoing botanical inventory. Plant traits may be useful in matching species to site conditions and restoration goals. Policy recommendations include phasing in of requirements to use native seed while restricting the use of agronomic species, promoting natural colonization, and supporting a native seed industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207