Plant community development following reclamation of oil sands mines using four cover soil types in northern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the effects of reclamation treatments on plant community development is an important step in setting realistic indicators and targets for reclamation of upland oil sands sites to forest ecosystems. We examine trends in cover, richness, evenness, and community composition for four cover soil types (clay over overburden, clay over tailings sand, peat‐mineral mix over overburden, and peat‐mineral mix over tailings sand) and natural boreal forests over a 20 year period in the mineable oil sands region of northern Alberta, Canada. Tree, shrub, and nonvascular plant species cover showed similar increases over time for all reclamation treatments, with corresponding declines in forb and graminoid cover with time. These trends resemble those in the natural boreal forests of the region and the trajectory of community development for the reclamation treatments appears to follow typical early successional trends for boreal forests. Species richness and diversity of natural forest differed significantly from reclamation treatments. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination and multi‐response permutation procedure revealed that species composition was not affected by reclamation treatment but clearly differed from natural forest. Analysis of species co‐occurrence indicated random plant community assembly following reclamation, in contrast to a higher proportion of nonrandom plant community assembly in natural forests. Thus, reclaimed plant communities appear to be unstructured through year 20 and assembly is still in progress on these reclaimed sites.
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".