Evaluating foliar nutrient concentration as an indicator of soil nutrients in reclaimed and natural forests in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foliar nutrient concentrations are commonly recommended as indicator for soil nutrient status in managed and wildland ecosystems. Using data from an oil sands mine reclamation site in Alberta, Canada, we evaluated whether trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) foliar concentrations of macronutrients accurately represent soil solution and soil nutrient pools in both reclaimed and wildfire-impacted natural reference boreal forest ecosystems. Reclamation soils were upland-based forest soil (forest floor-mineral mix; FFMM) and lowland-based peat soil (peat-mineral mix; PMM) with and without fertilisation. Individual macronutrient concentrations differed among treatments in the soil nutrient pool, but differences decreased in the soil solution pool and disappeared in the foliar pool. Few significant correlations between foliar and belowground pools were observed, but foliar phosphorus was correlated to soil phosphorus in natural reference sites. Multivariate analyses showed reclaimed sites were different from reference sites across all nutrient pools. Again, few significant multivariate correlations between foliar and belowground nutrient pools were observed, except for the unfertilised forest floor-mineral mix site, where foliar nutrients were positively correlated with soil solution. Based on our findings, we suggest that trembling aspen foliar nutrient concentrations are not a consistently reliable indicator of soil and soil solution nutrients in reclaimed or natural ecosystems.
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".