MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320994754 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2012-0162

Limited effects of simulated acidic deposition on seedling survivorship and root morphology of endemic plant taxa of the Athabasca Sand Dunes in well-watered greenhouse trials

2012· article· en· W2320994754 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Amanda L. Guy, Jenalee M. Mischkolz, Eric G. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyBotanyEcologyHabitatPopulationTaxonDeposition (geology)SeedlingSediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Athabasca Sand Dunes of northern Saskatchewan support 10 endemic vascular plant taxa listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The Athabasca Sand Dunes are subject to acidic deposition; the potential impacts of which are a significant knowledge gap to a comprehensive reassessment of the conservation status of these taxa. We used a greenhouse experiment to assess the potential effects of acidic deposition on the root system morphology of the following three endemic species: Armeria maritima (P. Mill) Willd. ssp. interior (Raup) Porsild, Deschampsia mackenzieana Raup, and Stellaria arenicola Raup. We found limited effects of three pH treatments on root diameter, root length, surface area, and branching. Although acidic deposition is likely not a short-term threat, current and future deposition still may be a significant long-term threat. The Athabasca Sand Dune soils are considered highly sensitive, and acidification and nutrient leaching can take several decades to manifest. This should be considered when assessing the conservation status of these endemic taxa, particularly A. maritima, as this species may be more sensitive than the other species to acidic deposition owing to a small population size and limited habitat breadth.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207