MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414927143

The Role of Ericaceous Shrubs in the Surface Water Balance and Soil Water Availability of Cutover Peatland, Québec

2008· dissertation· en· W2414927143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kegan K. Farrick

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatEnvironmental scienceWater balanceForestryHydrology (agriculture)GeographyEcologyGeologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peatlands are carbon sinks and occupy approximately 13% of Canada’s terrestrial surface of which 0.02% have been harvested for horticultural peat. The extraction of peat from natural peatlands alters the hydrology which affects the growth and survival of Sphagnum the primary peat forming vegetation. Ericaceous shrubs do not require specific water content and soil water pressure conditions for their existence and in cutover peatlands they occupy more than 70% of the surface. Rainfall interception, transpiration and root water uptake and redistribution are processes that alter water availability at the soil surface. The high abundance of shrubs at cutover peatlands will influence the surface water balance and more importantly soil water availability and, inevitably determine the success of Sphagnum reestablishment at the site. This study seeks to understand the role that ericaceous shrubs play in the surface hydrological balance at a cutover site and how these changes impact Sphagnum development. \n \nRainfall interception, transpiration, litter layer evaporation and soil water flux was investigated in the field and lab. Approximately 334 mm of rainfall was measured over the season. The shrub canopy and litter had a maximum storage capacity of 4 and 1.2 mm respectively and intercepted ca. 36.7% (120 mm) of rainfall over the season. The effects of rainfall intensity and duration were more important than gross rainfall in determining the amount of water intercepted by the canopy, while the thickness and mass of the litter layer largely determined the storage capacity. Evapotranspiration from shrubs averaged 2.5 mm day-1 with a total of 211 mm over the season. Transpiration was 68% (142 mm) of total evapotranspiration losses, and represented the greatest water loss from the shrub canopy. From these analyses only 22% (72 mm) of rainfall is available for other soil processes and moss development. The evaporation under a litter cover is lower than bare peat and in the field represents water storage of 17 mm over the season. Reduced water input by litter interception is offset by the increased water storage under the litter. \n \nLaboratory analyses of soil water flux under ericaceous shrubs show that water loss under the shrubs was greater than bare peat. Water use under the shrubs was highest between -10 and -30 cm and was ca. 2 times greater than bare peat at the same levels. Volumetric water content (θ) decreased throughout the day and water use by shrubs during the day was twice that at night. The shrubs also maintained θ and soil water pressure (ψ) above the threshold values of 50% and -100 cm, respectively, needed for Sphagnum survival. \n \nBased on these analyses the shrubs will be beneficial to Sphagnum reestablishment and survival once the primary water losses have been compensated. I recommend raising the water table above -20 cm. In peatland restoration activities, at this level, water used between -10 and -30 cm can quickly be recharged and surface moisture maintained above threshold by capillary rise helping to offset water loss by interception and transpiration through capillary rise.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207