Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus release from peat and forest floor-based cover soils used during oil sands reclamation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reclamation practices in the oil sands region of Alberta involve the reconstruction of soil profiles using a combination of salvaged mineral substrates and organic-matter-rich surface materials, including peat–mineral mix (PM) and forest floor – mineral mix (FFM). The successful re-establishment of vegetation on reclaimed sites is for a large part dependent on the nutrients these materials can provide. Hence, the overall objective of this study was to compare carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) release rates from PM and FFM materials used to cap reconstructed sandy soils. A 325 d laboratory incubation was conducted to measure these rates. The two materials released comparable amounts of N on a per kilogram of soil basis (111–118 mg N kg−1). However, when results were normalized based on each material’s organic C content, N release was six times greater for FFM than for PM, in accordance with results of previous studies. In addition, overall C mineralization and P release rates were over one order of magnitude higher with FFM than with PM. As opposed to N, however, P release seemed to be controlled more by abiotic processes than by organic matter mineralization. While the FFM material overall released more N and P, it also degraded faster; in comparison, PM may provide a smaller but more stable release of N.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".