Wildlife usage indicates increased similarity between reclaimed upland habitat and mature boreal forest in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region of Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there is no denying that oil sands development in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AOSR) has large impacts upon the habitat it disturbs, developers are legally required to return this land to "an equivalent land capability." While still early in the process of reclamation, land undergoing reclamation offers an opportunity to study factors influencing reclamation success, as well as how reclaimed ecosystems function. As such, an Early Successional Wildlife Dynamics (ESWD) program was created to study how wildlife return to and use reclaimed upland boreal habitat in the AOSR. Wildlife data comprising 182 taxa of mammals, birds, and amphibians, collected between 2011 and 2017 and from five oil sands leases, were compared from multiple habitat types (burned [BRN], cleared [CLR], compensation lakes [COMP], logged [LOG], mature forest [MF], and reclaimed sites [REC]). Overall, similarity of wildlife communities in REC and MF plots varied greatly, even at 33 years since reclamation (31-62% with an average of 52%). However, an average community similarity of 52% so early in the successional process suggests that current reclamation efforts are progressing towards increased similarity compared to mature forest plots. Conversely, our data suggest that REC plots are recovering differently than plots impacted by natural (BRN) or other anthropogenic disturbances (LOG), which is likely due to differences associated with soil reconstruction and development on reclaimed plots. Regardless of the developmental trajectory of reclaimed habitats, progression towards increased wildlife community similarity at REC and MF plots is apparent in our data. While there is no expectation that reclaimed upland habitats will resemble or function identically to naturally occurring boreal forest, the degree of similarity observed in our study suggests that comparable ecological functionality is possible, increasing the probability that oil sands operators will be able to fulfill their regulatory requirements and duty to reclaim regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".