MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524395309

Assessing the use of biotic and abiotic soil remediation for the restoration of temperate meadow ecosystems

2014· dissertation· en· W2524395309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Kastner

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbiotic componentEnvironmental scienceEcosystemEnvironmental remediationTemperate climateEcologyBiotic componentAgroforestryBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the extent of grasslands in Southern Ontario has been greatly reduced, urban and suburban areas provide numerous potential sites for their restoration. Grassland restoration in cities can provide ecological and cultural benefits, but soil conditions may be less than optimal for native species recovery. This thesis explores the use of soil amendments in order to address nutrient deficiency on old-field meadow restoration sites. Five treatments were tested, namely the addition of (1) nitrogenous fertilizer, (2) native legume species, (3) biochar, (4) a combination of the previous three, and (5) an unaltered control. Each treatment was replicated four times on two different test plots in Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada (Huron Natural Area and Springbank Farm), for a total of 40 subplots. The experimental plots were tilled in the fall of 2011, a randomly selected treatment was applied to each subplot, and then all were seeded with a mix of five native meadow species (2 grass, 2 forb, 1 sedge). Soil samples were taken from each subplot both before treatment application and also at the end of the growing season in 2012, and tested for nutrient levels (N, P, K), pH and organic matter. Species richness, as well as soil temperature and moisture, were regularly monitored over the growing season. In the fall of 2012, above-ground vegetation was harvested to assess accrued biomass. In order to detect differences in means, results were tested using one-way and repeated-measures ANOVAs, where appropriate. Pearson’s product-moment correlations were also employed to test for linear dependence between variables. \nThere were no significant differences between treatments in terms of soil nutrients or pH at either site. At Huron Natural Area, post-treatment biochar-treated subplots had slightly higher levels of organic matter than controls (p=0.095). Values for species richness, above-ground biomass, soil temperature and soil moisture did not vary significantly between treatments. Species richness at Huron Natural Area was positively correlated with 2011 N (r=0.42; p=0.07) and organic matter (r=0.52; p=0.02) levels, while at Springbank Farm it was negatively correlated with 2012 N levels (r=-0.67; p<0.001). Above-ground biomass at Huron Natural Area was positively correlated with 2011 and 2012 P levels (both r=0.52; p=0.02), while at Springbank Farm it was positively correlated with 2011 N, P, K and organic matter, and 2012 N, P and K (all r>0.44; p<0.05). At Huron Natural Area, above-ground biomass was negatively correlated with soil temperature (r=-0.64; p<0.0001) and positively correlated with soil moisture (r=0.38; p=0.1). This study uncovered a strong, but variable, relationship between N concentration and species richness in old-field meadows. Furthermore, productivity was tightly correlated with different soil nutrient concentrations at each study site. The results demonstrate the need for restoration approaches to address local soil conditions on order to be effective. To date, there have been very few studies on meadow restoration, particularly in North America. More, and longer-term, multivariate studies are needed in order to test the effectiveness of different techniques.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207