Plant Diversity Associated With Pools in Natural and Restored Peatlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes plant assemblages associated with the edges of peatland pools. We conducted inventories in six natural peatlands in the province of Québec (Canada) in order to measure the contribution of pools to species diversity in climatic regions where peatlands are used for peat extraction. We also carried out vegetation surveys in a peatland that has been restored after peat extraction/harvesting to determine whether pool vegetation establishes along the edges of created pools when dry surface restoration techniques only are used. Pools enhanced plant species richness in natural peatlands. Around created pools, species associated with natural pools were still absent, and non-bog species were present, six years after restoration. On this basis, we emphasise the importance of preserving natural peatlands with pools. In order to restore fully the plant diversity associated with peatlands at harvested sites, it may be necessary to modify pool excavation techniques so that created pools resemble more closely those in natural peatlands. Active introduction of the plant species or communities associated with natural pools may also be needed; candidate species for North America include Andromeda glaucophylla , Cladopodiella fluitans , Carex limosa , Eriophorum virginicum , Rhynchospora alba and Sphagnum cuspidatum .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".