Phosphorus availability and fractionation vary among forest site types in reconstructed oil sands soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated relationships between phosphorus (P) availability and fractionation and growth of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm. ex S. Watson) and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) in the Athabasca oil sands region. The study sites had peat – mineral soil mix (PMM) as cover soil over a tailings sand substrate planted to pine or an overburden substrate planted to spruce. Available P was determined using a modified Kelowna extraction and sequentially extracted to obtain exchangeable, Fe- and Al-bound, Ca- and Mg-bound, organic, and residual P. The organic P content in PMM explained 83% and 65% of the variations in available P in the pine and spruce sites, respectively. Phosphorus bound to Fe and Al in PMM was also positively related to available P on pine sites (p < 0.001) but not on spruce sites. Available P in PMM was correlated with aboveground biomass increment of spruce (p < 0.05) and explained 78% of the variation in foliar P. Foliar P in both pine and spruce was lower than the adequate level for tree growth. Low foliar P and available P in PMM affect the successful establishment of pine and spruce trees on the reclaimed sites, and proper P nutrition management is important to overcome P limitation in reclaimed soils.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".