Effects of cover soil stockpiling on plant community development following reclamation of oil sands sites in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stockpiling of cover soil can influence vegetation development following reclamation. Cover soil, comprising the upper 15–30 cm of the surface material on sites scheduled for mining, is commonly salvaged prior to mining and used directly or stockpiled for various lengths of time until it is needed. Salvaging and stockpiling causes physical, chemical, and biological changes in cover soils. In particular, stockpiling reduces the availability and vigor of vegetative propagules and seed, and can lead to increases in the abundance of some weedy species. This study uses data from monitoring plots to assess how stockpiling of cover soil impacts plant community development on reclaimed oil sands mine sites in northern Alberta. Development of plant communities differed distinctly between directly placed and stockpiled cover soil treatments even 18 years after reclamation. Direct placement of cover soil resulted in higher percent cover, species richness, and diversity. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling and multiresponse permutation procedure revealed compositional differentiation between the treatments. Indicator species analysis showed that direct placement treatment was dominated by perennial species while grasses and annual forb species dominated sites where stockpiled soil was used. Results indicate that stockpiling leads to slower vegetation recovery while direct placement of cover soil supports more rapid succession (from ruderal and annual communities to perennial communities). In addition, direct placement may be less costly than stockpiling. However, scheduling of salvage and placement remains a challenge.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".